As reported last week, the Senate’s internal economy committee has recalled Deloitte’s auditors to discuss their audit of Mike Duffy, this after the RCMP alleged “efforts to withdraw Senator Duffy from the Deloitte audit.” It’s not clear yet whether that meeting with auditors will be conducted in public.

Machinations around the Senate review of Mr. Duffy’s expenses are detailed throughout the RCMP’s filing. At pages 26 and 27, the Senate rules committee and a review of the residency requirements for Senators are discussed, including evidence of a memo sent to the Prime Minister about that particular matter. Elsewhere are references to the internal economy committee’s review of Mr. Duffy’s expenses and the writing of the committee’s report on same. In his conclusions, Cpl. Horton alleges as follows.

While Deloitte did not find wrongdoing on Senator Duffy’s part, the initial draft Senate Report summarizing the findings of Deloitte and the Senate sub-committee was critical of Senator Duffy. Such criticisms by a committee containing a Conservative majority went against the media lines and conditions already agreed upon by the PMO and Senator Duffy. The PMO in turn set out to have the Senate report changed to reflect how they wanted it to appear. The PMO changes to the report were given the Senator Stewart Olsen, who brought them forward. She and Senator Tkachuk, being the committee majority, imposed their will and the will of the PMO on the Senate report.

Thomas Mulcair. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps referring us back to the whitewashed report of the Senate. Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen is his former press secretary. Did he or did he not ever have any conversations with his former press secretary, Carolyn Stewart Olsen, concerning this affair in the Senate?

Stephen Harper. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, no, I did not, but it is very clear the Senate committee itself has answered those questions. It is the author of its own report. That report mirrors the recommendations of an independent audit conducted on behalf of the Senate; and the government, as a matter of fact, agrees with the recommendations in those reports, which are that the expenses in question are inappropriate and amounts such as that must be repaid to the taxpayers of Canada.

Thomas Mulcair. Mr. Speaker, who in the PMO was in contact with Senator David Tkachuk or Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen to whitewash the Mike Duffy report? Tkachuk confirmed that he had conversations with the PMO. Who was it with? It was the Prime Minister. He knows it. He can tell us and he has to tell Canadians.

Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, once again, as the senator said, the Senate and the Senate committee take responsibility for their own reports. Once again, we find the leader of the NDP trying to cast the net wide, trying to accuse people, who have been accused of nothing, of doing something wrong. In this case, Senator Tkachuk has been clear that the Senate obviously got advice from all kinds of sources, but in the end that committee made its own decisions and its own recommendations.

Those weren’t the only questions raised about the writing of the Senate committee’s report—see here, here, here, here, here and here.

During Question Period on Friday morning, Paul Calandra, the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary, offered the following explanation.

With respect to reports, I think all members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, are routinely given advice by different people. I note even in committee, when we are reviewing reports, political staff sit behind all of us but, ultimately, it is up to the members of Parliament, it is up to those who are elevated to the Senate, to make the decisions and to stand by the decisions they make. That happens every single day in this place, and I suspect it should happen in the Senate, as well.

At least one Conservative senator suggests this episode should be cause for reflection and another Conservative senator seems pleased that Christopher Montgomery, an official in the office of Marjory LeBreton at the time, asserted the Senate’s independence when the PMO allegedly moved to impose its changes on the Senate report.

After QP on Thursday, Brent Rathgeber—who has some history in this regard—dared suggest that this was more evidence of a lack of distinction between the executive and legislative branches of our government.

This is probably worth a moment or two of reflection.

The Prime Minister has asserted that the Senate is an “independent body” and that, as cited above, the Senate committee has responsibility for its own reports. Those statements were made before this week’s filing from the RCMP, but the suggestion thus could be that whatever his staff was requesting of Conservative Senators, it is still the Conservative Senators who are ultimately responsible for either accepting or refusing those requests. There would be a certain logic to this, but you might also understand why Mr. Montgomery objected. What would have happened if Carolyn Stewart Olsen had refused?

In an email on February 15, Mr. Wright writes that, “If the Rules and Procedures committee doesn’t have the right membership, then the Senate by motion should constitute a special committee that will have the right Senators on board.” What did he mean by “right Senators?” And what power did he have in these matters?

As the Senate expense issues broke and intensified, your office has increased its interaction with Senators as we try to manage the issues. What we have discovered is that the lines of communication and levers that are available to us on the House side, simply are not in place not he Senate side. It was quickly apparent that Senator LeBreton’s office had little influence over what other Senators did and said, and limited reach into the Senate caucus generally. Accordingly, we engaged directly with Chairs and certain Conservative members of the relevant committee and subcommittees, while trying to keep the Senate Leader’s office informed concurrently. These relationships with other Senators have enabled us to avert some additional problems.

What we see is a laissez-faire system that requires constant direction, supervision, and follow-up from your office to ensure that Government messaging and direction are followed. This problem is not limited to expense and residency issues; there are Senate committee reports that call on the government to lower airport rents, create a national pharmacare-plan, invest heavily in Aboriginal education, and review our tariffs as a way of dealing with the gap in retail prices between Canada and the U.S. We speak with Senators who do not receive talking points or communications advice and who are seldom, if ever, guided on messaging. In managing the Senate’s response to Ann Cools’ privilege motion relating to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we found that individual Conservative Senators had, or were preparing to, speak to the issue without any advance coordination and without thought to the impact on the Government’s litigation with the PBO. The Senate Leader’s office did work with us to establish the formal Government response to the issue, but did not consider any measures to manage other interventions by Conservative Senators until directed by us to do so. These issues are exacerbated by Senator LeBreton’s repeated approach of reaching agreements with Liberal leadership before coming to your office or her Senate colleagues for consultation. Consistently, Senator LeBreton does not embrace the work of your office to bring communication and direction with the Senate closer to the model that we have with the House Leader and Chief Government Whip.

In his interview with the CBC this weekend, Jason MacDonald, the Prime Minister’s director of communications, was asked whether the Prime Minister’s Office defended “what some are calling a whitewash or the influence of what should be an independent body by the Prime Minister’s Office.” Here was Mr. MacDonald’s response.

“I think there are a couple of points that are important to make. The first is, and I’m sure you’ve seen, Deloitte was asked about the integrity of the audit and they assured everybody that they have measures in place to protect the integrity of the work that they do and that they’re satisfied that the work that they have done has the integrity that’s required of them. In terms of the relationship between PMO and senators, it is not uncommon for—senators are caucus members and they, like any other caucus member, an MP, will work with the Prime Minister’s Office on, whether it’s communications, whether it’s parliamentary issues, and, in fact, we actually saw evidence of that when you looked at Mr. Trudeau who required his senators to vote a certain way on an issue.”

Mr. MacDonald has, conversely, been clear that Mr. Harper would not have approved of Senator Irving Gerstein contacting Deloitte about its audit of Mr. Duffy. So are we to assume that the editing of Senate committee reports by the PMO is a perfectly normal practice, or at least not so far outside accepted norms of executive-legislative relations that it should be considered worrisome?

But let us put the onus on MPs and Senators. How often are they accepting requests of the PMO or their respective leaders’ offices as to how committee business should be handled? How willingly do our parliamentarians accede to any requests of their leaders’ offices? More importantly, what sort of requests are they acceding to? And how much freedom of thought and deed should we expect them to employ? We can’t probably have a party system in which every MP and senator is an entirely independent actor, but how much of the legislature’s business is now run out of the offices of the party leaders, managed by unelected and unaccountable staff?

Should we be moving toward serious committee reform? Perhaps not simply having the House elect committee chairs, as Conservative MP Brad Trost has proposed, but also taking the power to choose committee members away from the party leadership?

At best, Parliament and parliamentarians probably now have an image problem—saddled with a perception, perhaps even an unfair perception, that MPs are at the beck and call of party leaders and the young men in suits who surround those leaders. Even if, in the best case, the amending of Mr. Rathgeber’s bill and the defeat of Mr. Warawa’s motion were perfectly defensible (I think at least the latter is almost definitely not), this is probably still the conversation to have now.

Of this particular matter, of course, it is not quite merely that a committee report was written according to the wishes of the PMO, it is also that those changes were allegedly compelled by a deal between Mr. Duffy and the PMO.

Robert Walsh, the former parliamentary law clerk, suggested on Friday that the machinations between Mr. Duffy, the PMO and others might not rise to the level of criminality, that this might merely be a matter of politics and Parliament. But even if this affair does not amount to charges or a conviction, it still exposes an episode in the inner workings of our Parliament—perhaps a particularly egregious episode, but one that might raise real concerns about how things actually work.

To the cast of characters of the Duffy affair, you can now add Christopher Montgomery.

May 8 was the day, according to the RCMP (you can view the filing here), that “major changes” were made to the Senate’s report on Mike Duffy.

At 1:54pm that day, Patrick Rogers, the director of parliamentary affairs in the Prime Minister’s Office, sent an email to Nigel Wright, the chief of staff, and Chris Woodcock, the director of issues management.

“The meeting is about to begin at 2pm,” Mr. Rogers wrote. “I just met with CSO [Carolyn Stewart Olsen]. I gave her our changes. She agreed with them 100%. I reinforced with her that the implementing of all of the changes to the report was the fulfillment of her commitment to Nigel and our building. She indicated she understood this.”

Forty minutes later, there was a problem.

“So I was too optimistic,” Ms. Stewart Olsen wrote to Mr. Rogers at 2:34pm on May 8. “Montgomery says we as Senators should not compromise ourselves.”

Mr. Rogers forwarded the email to Nigel Wright. “Here is the latest from the committee,” Mr. Rogers writes. “This is unbelievable.”

There were more emails then, from Mr. Rogers to Ms. Stewart Olsen; from Mr. Wright to Mr. Rogers and Chris Woodcock, the director of issues management in the PMO; from Mr. Montgomery to Ms. Stewart Olsen; from Ms. Stewart Olsen to Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Montgomery was the director of parliamentary affairs in the office of Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton, the Government leader in the Senate until this summer. He coordinated communications and worked with the PMO.

On September 11, 2013, Mr. Montgomery sat down down with two RCMP officers.

He told those officers that he “advised the PMO, specifically Patrick Rogers and Chris Woodcock, that they should not be involved in the Senate audit and reports regarding Senator Duffy.” According to Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Woodcock “did not share his view.”

In his seven years in the Senate, he told the RCMP, he could not recall “other times when representatives from the PMO actually attended meetings and insisted on wording of a Senate report.” He said he ignored a request from Mr. Wright to speak with Mr. Duffy regularly because “he did not want to get involved in the audit process.”

On May 8, Mr. Montgomery said he was present at a meeting with Senator LeBreton, Senator Stewart Olsen, Patrick Rogers and Chris Woodcock. “They discussed the draft Senate report pertaining to Senator Duffy, and the PMO staff present were urging to have the report amended to be less critical of Senator Duffy. He (Montgomery) wanted it to remain unchanged, and there was a clear disagreement on the issue,” the RCMP reports.

“Senator LeBreton’s view was that it up to the committee to decide. He cannot remember how the meeting ended and the outcome of the discussion.”

Mr. Montgomery has apparently since left Parliament Hill and was, as of September, said to be moving out of the province to pursue a new job in the private sector.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/christopher-montgomery-the-voice-of-dissent/feed/5Seven key points in the Duffy affairhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-duffy-affair-he-said-she-said-they-said-who-said/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-duffy-affair-he-said-she-said-they-said-who-said/#commentsFri, 25 Oct 2013 18:14:16 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=435000Making sense of the he said, she said, they said, who said

As a man who might now be regarded as something of an expert in the nature of knowledge and expectation once said, “There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

In the case of Mike Duffy and the housing allowance, there are a few things that fit the first category, but mostly there are things that fall within the second, and then surely still now there might be things to come that presently exceed our understanding and thus fit the third. After three days of claims and counter-claims—following nearly a year of reports, allegations and findings and with investigations still being pursued—the Duffy affair is thus still mostly open to imagination and supposition.

Herein, a look at the claims and accounts around seven aspects of the affair.

What was Mike Duffy told about his expenses?

After the Ottawa Citizen questioned the senator’s claim of a housing allowance in December 2012, Mr. Duffy says he reached out to Nigel Wright. “Nigel Wright emailed me back, saying he had my expenses checked and he was satisfied that my accounts were in order, that all was in compliance with Senate rules,” Mr. Duffy told the Senate on Tuesday evening. “In fact, he said, there were several other senators in the same situation. This was in December 2012. Mr. Wright said: The story is a smear.”

Mr. Duffy also claimed to have a memo from Marjory LeBreton, leader of the government in the Senate until this summer, that supports his position that his claims were within the rules. “I’ve violated no laws, I’ve followed the rules and I’ve got a ton of documentation, including a memo, a two-page memo from Sen. LeBreton’s office about it, and I never received a single note from Senate finance or the leadership that suggested anything in my travels was amiss.”

Senator LeBreton says she has no idea what Mr. Duffy is talking about. “What two-page memo? I have searched high and low and checked my files, and, for the life of me, I can find no memo that supposedly gives my approval to Senator Duffy to claim his property in Prince Edward Island as a principal residence in order to claim living expenses in Ottawa,” she told the Senate on Thursday night.

The February 13 meeting

Mr. Duffy says that after a February 13 meeting of the Conservative caucus, he spoke with the Prime Minister Minister and Nigel Wright. The Prime Minister’s Office previously disclosed, on May 31, that this conversation had taken place.

Mr. Duffy recalls the meeting as follows: “So after caucus on Feb. 13 of this year, I met the prime minister and Nigel Wright, just the three of us. I said that despite the smear in the papers, I had not broken the rules, but the prime minister wasn’t interested in explanations or the truth. It’s not about what you did; it’s about the perception of what you did that has been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base. I argued: I’m just following the rules like all of the others. But it didn’t work. I was ordered by the prime minister: Pay the money back, end of discussion. Nigel Wright was present throughout, just the three of us.”

Mr. Harper says he told Mr. Duffy to repay the expense claims. But he told the House on Wednesday that he did not say the other comments that Mr. Duffy suggests he said.

Was Mr. Duffy threatened with expulsion from the Senate?

Mr. Duffy says he was told that if he didn’t repay his expenses, some effort would be made to have him found unqualified to sit in the Senate. “He said the Conservative majority on the steering committee of the Board of Internal Economy, Sen. Tkachuk and Sen. Stewart Olsen, would issue a press release declaring me unqualified to sit in the Senate. However, if you do what we want, the prime minister will publicly confirm that you’re entitled to sit as a senator from P.E.I. and you won’t lose your seat. Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen are ready to make that press release now. I said: They don’t have the power to do that. He said: Agree to what we want right now or else.”

(It isn’t entirely clear who the “he” is here.)

On Wednesday, Thomas Mulcair asked the Prime Minister whether he threatened Mr. Duffy with expulsion during the February 13 meeting. “At that particular time did I threaten him with expulsion?” the Prime Minister responded. “No.”

On Thursday, Mr. Mulcair followed up on Mr. Harper’s reference to “that particular time.” “When did the Prime Minister threaten to expel Mike Duffy from the Senate?” the NDP leader asked. The Prime Minister did not provide a direct answer in response.

Speaking after Mr. Duffy on Tuesday evening, Conservative Senator David Tkachuk denied any role in a conspiracy to have Mr. Duffy removed from the Senate. “He went to great lengths to talk about the conspiracy in the Office of the Prime Minister to remove him from the Senate, of which he did not say that others had told him, but implied here that I and Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen were a part of. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Mr. Tkachuk said. “I want to assure senators, and I’m saying this in front of all my colleagues here, that I would never, ever participate in a conspiracy like this — never. I would never, ever participate in a conspiracy like this for any senators, let alone one of my colleagues on this side of the floor.”

The Deloitte audit

Mr. Duffy says that part of his agreement with Nigel Wright involved him being shielded from an outside audit of his expenses. “There was an undertaking made by the PMO, with the agreement of the Senate leadership, that I would not be audited by Deloitte, that I’d be given a pass; and further, that if this phoney scheme ever became public, Sen. LeBreton, the leader of the government of the day, would whip the Conservative caucus to prevent my expulsion from the chamber.”

Ms. LeBreton says she had no knowledge of any such arrangement. “Honourable senators, this is not true. This is false. Not one single person ever suggested to me that this be done. Never did I hear of such a scheme. As a matter of fact, on Tuesday, when Senator Duffy uttered those words, it was the first time I had ever heard of this. It was news to me. There was not even a rumour around this place to that effect, illustrating how utterly preposterous this claim is. On the question of the Deloitte audit, where on earth did Senator Duffy ever get the notion that I, as part of Senate leadership, would agree that he would not be audited, that he would be given a pass? This is another blatant falsehood. I stated publicly many times that I fully supported the calling in of outside auditors.”

Mr. Duffy says he was “sent off” to Deloitte anyway, but that he was then told (by an unnamed individual) that he didn’t need to give the auditors anything.

The May 16 phone call

In his remarks to the Senate, Mr. Duffy described a phone call involving Senator LeBreton and Ray Novak, principal secretary to the Prime Minister at the time and Nigel Wright’s successor as chief of staff. Senator LeBreton would later place this call as occurring on May 16, two days after CTV first reported the existence of a deal between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy.

Mr. Duffy describes the call thusly: “Then, in May, after someone leaked selected excerpts of a confidential email I had sent to my lawyer in February, in which I voiced my opposition and concern about the deal, the PMO was back with a vengeance. I was called at home in Cavendish by Ray Novak, senior assistant to the prime minister. He had with him Sen. LeBreton, leader of the government in the Senate. Sen. LeBreton was emphatic: The deal was off. If I didn’t resign from the Conservative caucus within 90 minutes, I’d be thrown out of the caucus immediately, without a meeting, without a vote. In addition, she said, if I didn’t quit the caucus immediately, I’d be sent to the Senate ethics committee, with orders from the leadership to throw me out of the Senate. With Ray Novak, my wife and my sister listening in on the call, Sen. LeBreton was insistent: You’ve got to do this, Mike. Do what I’m telling you. Quit the caucus within the next 90 minutes. It’s the only way to save your paycheque, quote.”

Ms. LeBreton recounts the call as follows: “Two scenarios were laid out for his consideration. I can only speak for myself here and report on my notes of what I said, but I ask the question: What deal, when he said the deal was off? Consider the chronology, honourable senators. On May 9, we reported in the Senate the audits. Senator Duffy, as far as we knew, had borrowed money from the Royal Bank and repaid to the Senate his inappropriate expenses, and then, following that, there was a report that he claimed further expenses from the Senate and the Conservative Party during the election campaign. We then found out about the real source of the funds on May 14 and confirmed on May 15, so put that in context when he said that I said the deal was off. This makes no sense.

“So we laid before Senator Duffy two scenarios. Scenario 1 was that I would put out a statement saying that Senator Duffy has informed me that he has resigned from the caucus to sit as an independent senator; and scenario 2 was that I would put out a statement saying that given the growing number of questions related to Senator Duffy’s conduct, he has been removed from the Conservative caucus.

“Once he was presented with these options, I said to him, and I quote myself because I wrote my words down: ‘Mike, do the right thing and get out in front of this.’ Naturally, he did not take this news well. There were some back and forth discussions about the implications of this and how the announcement of this would unfold. Honourable senators, because I could tell he was concerned, I said the following in order to assure him that sitting as an independent did not impact his position as a senator. ‘Mike,’ I said, ‘this is the only option that can ensure your future livelihood.’ A few angry words were spoken, and he hung up on us. Cooler heads eventually prevailed, and we got word back that he would issue a statement saying he was leaving to sit as an independent until these matters were resolved.”

Mr. Duffy suggests some kind of paper trail exists. “Given all of those emails, you can imagine my shock when I heard there’s not a single document about all of this in the PMO, not one. In response to an access-to-information request, CBC was told there’s not one single document related to this matter in the PMO. Well, if they’re not in the PMO, they’re in the hands of my lawyers and I suspect in the hands of the RCMP. Why don’t I release those documents now? Because the people involved have rights, which under our system, must be protected. Are the police looking at possible criminal charges? Are they wondering about bribery, threats and extortion of a sitting legislator? This is serious stuff, and the people who were involved and there’s more than those I’ve mentioned here today deserve to have their rights protected. It’s the Canadian way. It will all come out in due course when all of the players are under oath and the email chain can be seen in its entirety.”

Who knew? (And what did they know?)

The Prime Minister is adamant he had no idea Nigel Wright had cut Mike Duffy a cheque. According to Mr. Harper, he only became aware of this fact on May 15, when Mr. Wright told him.

According to an RCMP filing, Mr. Wright recalled telling four people that he would personally provide funds to Mr. Duffy: David van Hemmen (Mr. Wright’s executive assistant), Benjamin Perrin (legal counsel to the Prime Minister at the time), Chris Woodcock (director of issues management in the PMO at the time, now chief of staff to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver) and Conservative Senator Irving Gerstein.

Mr. Perrin has said he was “not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s decision to write a personal cheque to reimburse Senator Duffy’s expenses.”

Mr. Duffy says “elaborate undertakings” were “negotiated among the several lawyers involved in this … at least two lawyers from the PMO, one I know of from the Conservative party and my own lawyer.”

Tom Flanagan argues that Hugh Segal has demonstrated courage in questioning the move to suspend Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin from the Senate (Flanagan also argues that the public should be grateful Mr. Duffy spoke out), while Lori Turnbull considers the independence of senators and the nature of ministerial accountability as it pertains, in this case, to the Prime Minister.

Former government Senate leader Marjory LeBreton will apparently respond this afternoon to Mr. Duffy’s remarks of Tuesday evening and the Senate could proceed today with the motions to suspend any or all of the three senators, with Mr. Segal conceding that the government will likely have enough votes to immediately suspend them, rather than opt for the Liberal proposal of committee hearings.

Meanwhile, the Quebec Court of Appeal has ruled on a reference from the Quebec government to judge the constitutionality of Bill C-7, the Harper government’s most recent legislation for Senate reform. The court has ruled that to implement Senate elections would require the approval of at least seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

On the whole, when the real meaning and true character of Bill C-7 is analyzed, it unquestionably constituted an attempt to significantly amend the current method of selecting senators, that is, an appointive process until 75, the age of retirement. Such an amendment could only have been implemented as the result of the federal-provincial consensus paragraph 42(1)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 contemplates.

The agreement of a majority of the provinces based on the 7/50 formula would therefore have been required.

Moreover, it would have been aberrant to impose Bill C-7 on the provinces when it required the holding of elections conducted in accordance with provincial laws, with independent candidates or those endorsed by provincial political parties, without having discussed it with them and in the absence of a consensus that the 7/50 formula affords them.

Finally, Bill C-7 would be unconstitutional in that it permitted the amendment of the method of selection of senators as the provinces may choose at the choice of the province concerned, which, in 1982, the framers sought to prevent by specifying in subsection 42(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 that an amendment adopted relative to a matter contained in subsection 42(1) applies throughout Canada, without any possibility of exclusion. The framers intended that amendments made with respect to the matters mentioned in paragraph 42(1)(b) be uniform and ones of general application.

The judges also state that abolition would require the unanimous consent of the provinces.

The official findings will be released tomorrow, but amid various leaks and whispers about the contents and ramifications of an audit of Pamela Wallin’s expenses, Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton has put out a statement to explain how the Harper government feels about all this.

“Our Government will not tolerate the waste or abuse of the hard earned tax dollars of Canadians. We expect that any inappropriate expenses will be repaid. Senator Wallin is no longer a member of the Caucus and must be held accountable for her actions.”

“These issues are coming to light because of actions we took to publicly release Senators’ expenses when we gained a majority in the Senate in 2010. We have subsequently taken steps to toughen rules governing Senate expenses.”

“Our Government will continue to advocate for meaningful reform of the Senate – including elections, term limits and tough spending oversight. Canadians understand that our Senate, as it stands today, must either change, or like the old Upper Houses of our provinces, vanish.”

“Vanish” is a fun word to apply to the possibility of abolition. One imagines this would involve David Copperfield. Or a giant chasm opening in the ground and swallowing the Senate chamber whole.

Ms. Wallin decided to “recuse” herself from the Conservative caucus in May. A source tells CTV that Ms. Wallin views the audit process as “fundamentally flawed and unfair,” but that she will repay the full amount plus interest.

Here, for reference, is the June interview Ms. Wallin gave to the CBC. She’ll apparently deliver a statement in about an hour.

Update 5:28pm. The statement from Ms. Wallin.

This morning I was given a copy of the Deloitte report, which will be tabled at the Senate Committee in a few minutes. It is my view that this report is the result of a fundamentally flawed and unfair process.

When appointed to the Senate in 2009, I was determined to be an activist Senator, one who saw it as her job to advance causes that are important to Canadians. When invited to appear publicly and speak on subjects including the role of women in public life, Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, and support for our troops, I saw it as my duty to accept whenever able to do so. Travel to these public speeches and appearances was, and is, in my continuing view, a legitimate Senate expense.

However, in the Deloitte report, a number of expenses going back to 2009 that were submitted – and approved – by Senate Finance over a four year period have now been disallowed.

Deloitte has wrongly, in my view and in the opinion of my lawyers, applied the 2012 changes made to the Senators’ Travel Policy retroactively. The result is that travel expenses, which were approved and paid by Senate Finance in 2009, 2010 and 2011 have, in a number of cases, been disallowed.

The basis for this latter decision is apparently some arbitrary and undefined sense of what constitutes “Senate business” or “common Senate practice” and – by their own admission – no inquiries were made of other Senators as to their definition or views on the subject.

Finally, Deloitte has identified a number of items that they say are “subject to interpretation.” In other words, Deloitte was unable to conclude that these expenses should not be allowed. That determination will now be made by the Senate Committee.

I want to be absolutely clear. I never intended to seek, nor sought reimbursement for travel expenses in any situation where I did not believe such a claim was proper. Where I made mistakes, I have already paid money back.

There are media reports today that I changed my electronic calendar after the audit started. Let me be clear – at no time did I attempt to mislead Deloitte in any way. I was advised part way through the process that I should only include information relevant to the actual expenses being claimed. So we formatted our calendar accordingly and added as much additional information as we had regarding the claims, without irrelevant, private or personal information included. We knew that Deloitte had a copy of the original calendars available to them at all times.

It was not until very late in the process – in July – that we were asked about differences between the office calendars and so we told them what had happened and why – and followed up with a written explanation, which is attached to the Deloitte report as an appendix – and we immediately supplied them my personal, handwritten diaries for the entire period. As I said, no attempt was made to mislead Deloitte.

While I have serious concerns about the fairness of this process, I do not want to further burden the people of Saskatchewan, the Canadian public, or my Senate colleagues any more with this matter. I want to return my focus to representing the people of my home province and advocating for the causes that are close to my heart.

Finally, let me state clearly that I will pay back the full amount ordered by the Committee, including interest, once the final figure is given to me, and I will do so from my own resources.

I need now to attend the Committee addressing the auditor’s report. Until the Committee completes its report, there is nothing more I am able to say.

A government source suggests the Prime Minister is about to make an unconventional move when he shuffles the cabinet.

And the prime minister is already signalling one structural change to the cabinet as a direct response to the Senate expense scandal that is dogging his government. Whoever replaces LeBreton as the government leader in the upper chamber will not be a member of the cabinet, a government source said on condition of anonymity.

The government has recently amped up its rhetoric on bringing in an elected Senate. “The next Senate leader will not be a member of the ministry, so that would leave us with a 100 per cent elected cabinet,” said the source.

Parliament’s online record identifies only four leaders of the government in the Senate who have not been part of cabinet, the last being Alfred Brooks from 1962 to 1963. Marjory LeBreton has been a member of cabinet since the Conservatives formed government.

The Conservative MP for Calgary-Nose Hill and the minister of state for foreign affairs announces she won’t seek re-election.

“However, we are in a period of transition. There will be a significant riding redistribution prior to the next election in 2015, and because of tremendous growth in northwest Calgary there will be drastic changes to Calgary-Nose Hill. A major part of my current riding will become the new Calgary-Rocky Ridge. This has led many to ask whether I will seek another term in office, and if so, in which riding.

“As I am fully engaged in my responsibilities, I had not intended to publicly share my decision until a year from now. However, since some of my colleagues have recently announced that they will not seek re-election in 2015 the questions are becoming more insistent. That puts me, my family and my staff in an uncomfortable position. I therefore think that, especially since others beside myself are affected, this is the appropriate time to announce that after serving twenty-two years I will be leaving the political arena in 2015.

As well, Senator Marjory LeBreton says she intends to step down as leader of the government in the Senate.

“After almost seven and a half years, I have advised the Prime Minister of my intention to step down as Leader of the Government in the Senate.

I would like to personally thank Prime Minister Harper for giving me the opportunity of a lifetime to serve in his government and to be part of so many initiatives undertaken by our government on behalf of our fellow citizens, whether it be economic growth and stability, safer communities or courageous and principled foreign policy. Most of all, I want to thank him for his trust, his strong leadership and his friendship.

While I will be leaving the position of Government Leader in the Senate, I will continue to be an active member of the Conservative Caucus over the next few years. I intend to step up my efforts in support of meaningful Senate reform and also actively back the new strengthened rules we introduced regarding Senate expenses.”

Ms. Ablonczy excusing herself leaves the potential for four openings with Ted Menzies and Keith Ashfield having previously excused themselves and the voters in Labrador having excused Peter Penashue. If Vic Toews chooses to retire, there would be five open spots.

Senator LeBreton was also a member of cabinet, but will obviously be replaced by another senator.

Senators say the darndest things. Today, during the Senate’s Question Period, Liberal Senator Jane Cordy asked Marjory Lebreton, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, about the conduct of certain staffers within the Prime Minister’s Office. Cordy was referring to a missive a PMO communications staffer, reportedly Erica Meekes, sent to the newsroom of the Barrie Advance. The subject matter was Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s paid speaking engagement at Georgian College, and the PMO wanted the paper to report nasty things about how the college suffered financially after paying Trudeau. The note came with a pre-condition: if the paper reported its contents, Meekes would be quoted as “a source.” The paper called out the PMO for sending out unsolicited attacks.

Cordy’s question, then, went as follows.

Do you believe it is appropriate for a staffer in the Prime Minister’s Office, one who is being paid out of the budget of the Privy Council, to be gathering and distributing information with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the leader of another political party? Frankly, I do not consider this partisan exercise to be of public service in nature. Perhaps the honourable senator can enlighten me on the matter?

Lebreton responded and wrapped up with a heavy dose of honesty.

What planet do we all live on here? Whether it is the office of the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Prime Minister or a minister of the Crown, we all have duties to perform that relate to our work as members of the government, in my case, or as members of the opposition, in your case; and we have people who work for us on our political files. I do not see anything unusual about that. Certainly, someone on the public payroll working for your leader spends a lot of his time spinning out stories, some true, some not true, on this side politically. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the business we are in.

The “nature of the business” is to spend “a lot of” time “spinning out stories… some not true”? Anyone who watches politics knows that’s a no-brainer, but that the government’s leading voice in the Senate so honestly stated it for the record is, well, worth remembering—you know, any time a government spokesman claims anything, at all, ever, to be truthful.

On Sunday, Justin Trudeau teased that the Liberals would soon come forward with new ideas to increase transparency around the expenses of MPs and senators.

Yesterday, Conservative Senate leader Marjory LeBreton said she’ll introduce a motion that will call on the auditor general to audit Senate expenses.

Liberal Senate leader James Cowan then said the House of Commons should also be audited.

Meanwhile, Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux is proposing a bill that would force party leaders to endorse all political ads run by their respective parties. Mr. Lamoureux tells the Star he doesn’t know if Mr. Trudeau supports his idea, but if the Liberals do support it, there’s surely nothing stopping them from unilaterally imposing the rule on themselves regardless of whether the bill ever passes the House.

If a political leader is willing to accept whatever grief might result from implementing reforms, there are easy points to be scored now on transparency. Full disclosure of MP expenses would seem an obvious proposal to make. But so too would new oversight for government advertising (as the BC NDP proposed in January and as the Ontario Liberals have already implemented).

Less sexy, but more important would be commitments to reform the access to information system, establish the Parliamentary Budget Officer as an independent and well-funded institution and overhaul the estimates process.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-transparency-measuring-contest/feed/4Rest assured, Mr. Harper is very upset about all of thishttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/rest-assured-mr-harper-is-very-upset-about-all-of-this/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/rest-assured-mr-harper-is-very-upset-about-all-of-this/#commentsTue, 21 May 2013 15:30:57 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=385860But he will not be distracted from focusing on the economy

The Prime Minister arrived to the stage with a slight smile, an acknowledgement perhaps of his caucus’ willingness to stand and applaud his presence at this particular moment. He quickly turned serious.

“Good morning, everyone. Colleagues, obviously the reason I’m speaking to you this morning is I want to talk about some events that have transpired recently. And I don’t think any of you are going to be very surprised to hear that I’m not happy,” he said. “I’m very upset…”

So upset that he would commit here and now to release any and all relevant documents and correspondence in the possession of his office? So upset that he would submit to a news conference today to address the allegations concerning his former top aide? So upset that he would detail precisely what he knows about the arrangement between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy? So upset that he would offer any kind of explanation here now with all these cameras summoned to transmit his remarks to the nation?

No, no, not that upset. Just upset enough to feel it necessary to tell everyone that he was indeed upset. A revelation that even he conceded was not much of a surprise.

“… about some conduct we have witnessed, the conduct of some parliamentarians and the conduct of my own office.”

In fact, we have not witnessed anything except the spectacle of a government attempting to slowly explain how one of the Prime Minister’s appointees in the Senate had come to pay back some unfortunately claimed expenses and how the Prime Minister’s chief of staff had come to be involved in the return of those funds. The actual events in question occurred entirely in secret.

Now though we would witness self-congratulation paraded for all to see.

“We’ve worked hard collectively, as a party, as a caucus and as a government to dramatically strengthen accountability rules in Ottawa and to apply those standards to ourselves,” Mr. Harper explained. “I need not remind you that in 2006 this government was first elected to clean up the Liberal sponsorship scandal, to ensure the rules are followed and to ensure there are consequences when there are not. Since that time we have taken unprecedented measures to achieve that end. Our federal Accountability Act, the toughest accountability legislation in the history of this country, forever changed the way business is done in Ottawa.”

In so far as perhaps no one other chief of staff has previously been accused of cutting a $90,000 cheque to a sitting senator, it can be said that this much is true. If Mr. Harper promised to change Ottawa, he did not ever specifically say that this precise situation would never occur.

“We have strengthened the powers of the auditor general, toughened the office of the ethics commissioner, reformed political party financing, dramatically tightened lobbying rules and beefed up auditing and accountability within government departments.”

All of which is all well and good, but seemingly irrelevant to the matter at hand: or at least insufficient to prevent it from happening.

“Canada now has one of the most accountable, transparent systems of governance in the entire world and this is something Canadians are rightly proud of.”

So maybe there remain major shortcomings. But always look on the bright side: it could be worse. We could live, for instance, in any of the countries in which the lack of a full explanation for this sort of thing would be considered perfectly unremarkable.

“It is also something, colleagues, we can never taken for granted.”

Indeed. For instance, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff could hypothetically be accused some day of cutting a cheque for a sitting senator and interfering in a Senate investigation.

“Because as I said, in fact as I said in the room across the hall, in the fall of 2005, when we first pledged to bring in the federal Accountability Act, I said this, ‘No government will be perfect because none of us are perfect. We cannot dream a system so perfect that no one will have to be good.’ ”

Consider any sense of perfection duly shattered.

“Therefore, just as we continue to toughen rules, we must also uphold a culture of accountability. And I know that the people in this room have.”

Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright, of course, were not present. But the Prime Minister obviously was. And it is the actions of his office of which he seems to have been quite unaware and which he seems rather reluctant now to address.

“We have reduced our budgets and travel as a government. We are the caucus that finally bit the bullet and reformed the MP pension plan so that we will pay our fair share.”

This received a standing ovation, the caucus apparently eager to cheer for something entirely unrelated to Mr. Duffy’s housing allowance.

“And I know that like me and my family, you are scrupulous about paying expenses of a personal nature yourselves.”

All of you apparently unaware of Mr. Wright’s willingness and generosity.

“But that said, let me repeat something else I said in that same speech in 2005 and let me be very blunt about it … Anyone, anyone, who wants to use public office for their own benefit should make other plans or, better yet, leave… this… room.”

Here he wagged his left index finger and his caucus again stood to applaud.

“Now colleagues, let me also address the issue of the Senate,” he continued when everyone had returned to their seats. “As Canadians know, I did not get into politics to defend the Senate.”

This drew chuckles.

“And it was this party that put Senate reform on the national agenda. It was this government that has placed before Parliament a bill, opposed by both the Liberals and the NDP, to allow for Senate elections and to put term limits on senators. And, in this room, our colleagues from the Senate have agreed to sit in the other place in order to support our efforts to achieve fundamental, irreversible reform. Colleagues, we have heard from Canadians loud and clear. They want us to continue our efforts. They are asking us to accelerate those efforts. The Senate status quo is not acceptable. Canadians want the Senate to change.”

Pity then that the Conservatives, despite possessing a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and despite having demonstrated a great willingness to use time allocation to ensure the passage of government legislation, have done nothing with that bill for 14 months.

“Now, as you know, our Senate reforms have been tied up in Parliament for years,” Mr. Harper explained, seemingly without any sense of irony. “Earlier this year, we asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on whether the reforms we have proposed can be accomplished by Parliament acting alone. We’ve also asked the court to rule on options for abolishing the Senate completely.”

Apologies to Canadians who were eager for quick change to the Senate. It’s going to be awhile yet.

“And, as we prepare to receive and act on the judgment of the Supreme Court, we will also take further steps in the area of Senate expenditure and accountability. Senator LeBreton and I have discussed this and she has my full support to accelerate changes to the Senate’s rules on expenses and close any loopholes in those existing rules and I expect Conservative senators, regardless of what opposition you may face, to get that done in the Senate.”

A new rule advising against the cutting of cheques by chiefs of staff is apparently necessary.

“Colleagues, we have an active and important agenda on the issues that matter to hardworking Canadian families and there is much work to be done. When distractions arise, as they inevitably will, we will deal with them firmly.”

A distraction. Is that what this is?

“But we cannot lose sight of our top priority. The world we are in remains a deeply uncertain place.”

The sea of troubles, forever lapping at our shores. Do not be distracted by the profound questions about the conduct of Mr. Harper’s departed aide, lest ye be swamped by the perilous waves.

“Canadians are looking to us to protect them — their jobs, their families, their communities.”

Their debts to the Receiver General of Canada.

“That is what we must be focussed on and what we will continue to do: continue to implement our Economic Action Plan, continue to work on expanding trade, continue our focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, and continue to ensure that through all the ups and downs of the world economy there remains no better place to be than this country, Canada. So let’s get back to work.”

That work not yet entailing something like a public explanation from the Prime Minister for all that apparently necessitated this speech.

There were shouted questions then from the reporters at the back of the room. Mr. Harper ignored the queries, his caucus chanted his surname. There were efforts then to encourage the exit of the invited reporters—”Thanks folks, thanks everyone,” offered the Prime Minister’s flacks—but the crowd was slow to move. More questions were shouted. The Prime Minister sat at the table at the front of the room and smiled slightly and uncomfortably. One of his senators and two of his cabinet ministers came up to talk to him.

The Prime Minister himself would say no more, at least not publicly. He would leave it to the members of his caucus to later face the hordes who waited outside this room with cameras and spotlights and microphones.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/rest-assured-mr-harper-is-very-upset-about-all-of-this/feed/43Marjory LeBreton on the Senate investigationhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/marjory-lebreton-on-the-senate-investigation/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/marjory-lebreton-on-the-senate-investigation/#commentsTue, 21 May 2013 14:03:50 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=385847'These reports were written and approved by the Internal Economy Committee and no one else'

Last night, via email, I asked Senator Marjory LeBreton, the government’s leader in the Senate, about the Senate’s investigation of Mike Duffy. Specifically: Do you have any reason to believe the Senate investigation and audit of Mr. Duffy’s expenses were affected by the agreement between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright?

Here is her response.

The audits tabled are those received from Deloitte. The covering reports from Internal Economy used language for Harb and Brazeau to facilitate the recovery of the money. The language was not used in the Report on Duffy because the money had been paid back. These reports were written and approved by the Internal Economy Committee and no one else.

A statement from Marjory LeBreton, leader of the government in the Senate.

“Senator Duffy has informed me that he has resigned from caucus to sit as an independent senator.”

And a statement from Mr. Duffy.

“It is clear the public controversy surrounding me and the repayment of my Senate expenses has become a significant distraction to my caucus colleagues, and to the government. Given that my presence within the Conservative caucus only contributes to that distraction, I have decided to step outside of the caucus and sit as an independent Senator pending resolution of these questions.

“Throughout this entire situation I have sought only to do the right thing. I look forward to all relevant facts being made clear in due course, at which point I am hopeful I will be able to rejoin the Conservative caucus.

“This has been a difficult time for me and my family, and we are going to take some time away from the public. I ask the media to respect our privacy while these questions are resolved through the appropriate processes.”

A government source says “there are a growing number of questions about Mr. Duffy’s conduct that don’t have answers” and that reports that Senator Duffy had taken out a loan—as CTV first reported last night—came as a “complete surprise.”

Update 10:07pm. CTV is now reporting that Mr. Duffy “attempted to influence the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission’s upcoming decision involving the right-leaning Sun News Network.”

A well-placed source told CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that Duffy approached a Conservative insider with connections to the CRTC three weeks ago to discuss Sun Media, which is asking the federal regulator to grant its news channel “mandatory carriage,” or guaranteed placement on basic cable and satellite packages. The move would boost Sun News Network’s profile and revenues.

“You know people at the CRTC,” the insider quoted Duffy as saying. “This is an important decision on Sun Media. They have to play with the team and support Sun Media’s request.”

Update 11:39pm. The Canadian Press reports that Senator Duffy was facing a revolt.

Conservative sources said the vast majority of his Senate colleagues had signed a petition calling for his ouster from caucus and they were prepared to confront Duffy with that petition at a meeting next Tuesday evening.

And Steve Ladurantaye has comment from Sun News (more from David Akin). The Globe has comment from Rob Walsh, the former parliamentary law clerk. And here is tonight’s At Issue panel.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mike-duffy-resigns-from-the-conservative-caucus/feed/74This mess the Senate’s inhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-mess-the-senates-in/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-mess-the-senates-in/#commentsTue, 14 May 2013 19:00:11 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=384067A legal opinion, a request from the NDP and a statement from Patrick Brazeau

The RCMP is apparently reviewing the Senate’s expense troubles and former senator Lowell Murray says the word “crisis” is applicable here. Meanwhile, Postmedia reported yesterday that the Senate’s internal economy committee was seeking a legal opinion on the precise nature of the Constitution’s residency requirement for senators, but that the Senate was not likely to release that legal opinion publicly.

However, the Senate should soon interpret the residency requirement to settle questions that have swirled for months and longer about Duffy but fellow Conservative Sen. Pamela Wallin.

Underlying that decision will be a legal opinion about the section of the Constitution dealing with senators’ qualifications. The Senate’s powerful internal economy committee has asked for the legal opinion, but it has not yet arrived at the committee’s table and it’s unlikely the conclusions will ever be made public.

This afternoon, I asked the office of Senator David Tkahuk, chair of the internal economy committee, why that legal opinion wouldn’t be released and have just now been told that the senator has no comment. But NDP MP Charlie Angus has written today to the Senate seeking a legal opinion that Conservative Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton apparently referenced and the legal opinion the internal economy has sought.

And now, Senator Patrick Brazeau’s office has released a statement that quibbles with the Senate’s findings against him.

On December 11, 2013, Senator Brazeau met with the sub-committee on Internal Economy to discuss issues pertaining to his primary residence. At that meeting, Senator Brazeau disclosed documentation and facts regarding that, in fact, Maniwaki, Quebec is his primary residence. As requested, Senator Brazeau provided his driver’s license, health card, income tax returns and voting information.

On February 26, 2013 Senator Brazeau met Deloitte auditors at which time additional information was requested. On February 28, 2013 the additional information was hand delivered to Deloitte. On April 15, 2013 Senator Brazeau once again met with the Deloitte auditors to answer any final questions they had.

On April 29, 2013 Senator Brazeau received a copy the draft report prepared by Deloitte. In that report, no conclusions were made regarding Senator Brazeau’s primary residence. Senator Brazeau was, nevertheless, deemed to have met all four primary residence “indicators.” Furthermore, the report states no false claims were made by Senator Brazeau.

Despite meeting Deloitte’s primary residence criteria and co-operating fully and completely, the Senate committee on Internal Economy tabled a report in the Senate Chamber on May 9, in which orders Senator Brazeau to repay the sum of $34,619 in living expenses and $144.97 in travel expenses.

It is unclear how the Committee could have come to this conclusion when there is no clear definition of what, for purposes of their own policy, constitutes a “primary residence.” Deloitte notes that the current Senate policy uses the following terms without any definitions – primary residence, secondary residence, NCR residence and provincial residence. The Deloitte report in no way finds anything untoward regarding the claims and documents filed by Senator Brazeau.

Additionally, Senator Brazeau has fulfilled his obligations in forwarding all relevant documentation requested by the Committee and auditors. It remains unclear if all other sitting Senators meet the primary residency indicators – which Senator Brazeau does — or if they were treated with the same scrutiny, rules, regulations and definitions.

As a result, Senator Brazeau will be seeking greater clarification and will explore all options to have this determination overturned by applying the current policies, rules and regulations pertaining to this matter including calling a public meeting of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy to explain their decision.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-mess-the-senates-in/feed/22The Commons: The Real Senators of Parliament Hillhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-real-senators-of-parliament-hill/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-real-senators-of-parliament-hill/#commentsThu, 09 May 2013 22:41:17 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=382319May you never again have to wonder where your senator lives

“Even the bogus investigation by his hand-picked cronies in the Senate,” Thomas Mulcair charged, rather audaciously and perhaps imprudently, in the Prime Minister’s direction this afternoon, “found that Mike Duffy does not maintain a primary residence on Prince Edward Island. The Constitution requires that a senator ‘be a resident of the province for which he is appointed.’ The Conservatives now admit, through their own bogus investigation, that Mr. Duffy is not a resident of PEI, yet still say that he is qualified to be a senator from PEI. Why is the Prime Minister allowing this continuous fraud by the Conservatives in the Senate?”

The Prime Minister’s interpretation of the day’s news differed somewhat.

“Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, an independent external auditor was brought in to examine all of these expenses,” Mr. Harper explained. “He looked obviously at the expenses of three particular senators who have had some difficulty.”

Let us from this day forward remember this moment in Senate history as the Great Difficulty.

“The auditor has concluded that the rules in place were not clear,” Mr. Harper continued, “however, the Senate itself has decided it expects better judgment from the senators. Senator Duffy has some months ago repaid the money and the Senate has decided that other senators will be expected to similarly repay those amounts.”

Officially today, the Senate’s standing committee on internal economy, budgets and administration tabled its 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th reports. Senator Patrick Brazeau has been ordered to repay $48,744, including interest, in previously claimed expenses. Senator Mac Harb has been ordered to repay $51,482. Senator Mike Duffy seems to have accidentally claimed a per diem for several days that he shouldn’t have. A further examination of Senator Harb’s expenses over the seven years prior to April 1, 2011 will also now be conducted. The senior Liberal in the Senate wants the police called in. And Senator Harb has quit the Liberal caucus and says he will take up the finding against him with the courts.

If you should feel it necessary to understand as much as possible about Senator Duffy’s situation, there is a table located at the bottom of page 2 of the Deloitte audit. It is wonderfully entitled “Summary of Senator Duffy’s Location.” (There are similar tables too for Senator Harb and Senator Brazeau.) Of the 549 days covered by the firm’s investigation, Senator Duffy finished 296 days in Ottawa. A total of 164 days, including one “identified day trip,” were concluded in Prince Edward Island. Thus, just 30% of his days were spent in the province he officially represents. Twenty-six days were spent in “other locations.” For 16 days—listed as “Unknown”—Mr. Duffy seems to have gone missing.

We might now resolve this matter forever by having our senators wear GPS ankle bracelets or if we began tagging them like wild bears. Instead, it is in the opinion of the standing committee on internal economy, budgets and administration that “accompanying their primary residence declaration each senator furnish a driver’s licence, a health card and the relevant page of their income tax form each and every time the declaration is signed.” This will presumably help to substantiate the constitutional requirement of residing in the place one is appointed to represent. Hopefully, Senator Duffy will have his PEI health card by the time he is next required to sign the declaration.

“This audit has indicated that there is a ‘lack of clarity’ in the Senate’s rules and definitions with regard to residency and housing allowances,” Senator Duffy responded in a statement. “In this respect, the audit is consistent with the position I have maintained since this controversy first arose.”

Fair enough. The precise nature of the requirement of primary residence was unclear. As unclear perhaps as the precise reason for maintaining a second chamber.

Afterwards, in foyer of the House of Commons, the NDP’s Charlie Angus was happily, if unfortunately, questioning the comprehension of the senators in question—”They stay till 75 doing important work reviewing complex legislation yet they’re not bright enough to fill out a simple housing form”—and down the hall, in the foyer of the Senate, Marjory LeBreton was asking reporters to note the upside: that the Conservatives had introduced quarterly reports on senators’ expenses and those reports had led to today’s clarification of the rules.

The Senate, meanwhile, sent around the statement of Senator David Tkachuk, chair of the standing committee on internal economy, budgets and administration, an appointee of Brian Mulroney in 1993.

“Each of us is here because of our service to our community, to our profession or to our political party. I tell new Senators that God has blessed us. We are privileged to be here,” Senator Tkachuk apparently told the upper chamber today. “But at the same time, and as we have found out at great cost to this institution, any mistakes we make are magnified tenfold. That is because, as a non-elected democratic institution, the ones we govern do not have the ability to ‘throw the rascals out.’ We are protected by parliamentary privilege and by constitutional requirement. We therefore have a higher obligation. How seriously we take it will determine our future.”

And so, if God wishes there to be a Senate, may He bless it with fewer reasons to scrutinize the nature of its existence.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-real-senators-of-parliament-hill/feed/13The Constitutional requirement for a pinky swearhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-constitutional-requirement-for-a-pinky-swear/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-constitutional-requirement-for-a-pinky-swear/#commentsFri, 01 Mar 2013 16:06:24 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=355851A senator lives where he or she says they live

Marjory LeBreton, government leader in the Senate, says the legal advice they received is that signing a declaration of qualification form that says he is from the island is all it takes. ”There is no doubt that senators that sit in the Senate, by way of the declaration of qualification, qualify to sit in the Senate,” LeBreton said.

So, as far as the Senate is concerned, as long as you sign a declaration indicating that you are a resident of somewhere, you are a resident of there. Maybe that’s why the Prime Minister was comfortable declaring that all senators met the constitutional residency requirement.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-constitutional-requirement-for-a-pinky-swear/feed/8Mike Duffy does not want to be a distractionhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mike-duffy-does-not-want-to-be-a-distraction/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mike-duffy-does-not-want-to-be-a-distraction/#commentsFri, 22 Feb 2013 22:31:02 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=353494The Senator will repay those living expenses

Senator Mike Duffy apparently visited the CBC studio in Charlottetown this afternoon to say he’ll be paying back the living expenses he claimed in regards to his home in Ottawa.

“Everywhere I go, people are talking. Well where do you live? What’s it all about? …,” he said. “It’s become a major distraction. “So my wife and I discussed it, and we decided that in order to turn the page, to put all this behind us, we are going to voluntarily pay back my living expenses related to the house we have in Ottawa.”

Duffy blamed the Senate for having unclear rules and forms. “We are going to pay it back, and until the rules are clear — and they’re not clear now, the forms are not clear, and I hope the Senate will redo the forms to make them clear — I will not claim the housing allowance.”

Senator Duffy has also now spoken to CTV. His tab for living expenses is reported to be a little over $42,000.

Four years ago, I was given the opportunity to sit in the Senate as a voice for Prince Edward Islanders in Ottawa. I jumped at the chance. I was born here, I was raised here, I own a house here, I pay property taxes here, and most important, my heart is here.

I also started my career here, and took my Island sensibilities along when I was covering politics in Ottawa.

Being a Senator has allowed me to do a lot of good for PEI communities. And there is a lot more to be done.

Recently questions have been raised about my eligibility for the housing allowance provided to MPs and Senators.

The Senate rules on housing allowances aren’t clear, and the forms are confusing. I filled out the Senate forms in good faith and believed I was in compliance with the rules.

Now it turns out I may have been mistaken.

Rather than let this issue drag on, my wife and I have decided that the allowance associated with my house in Ottawa will be repaid.

I want there to be no doubt that I’m serving Islanders first.

Update 5:42pm. A Conservative source tells me, “the government has no doubt whatsoever about Senator Duffy’s qualification to represent PEI in the Senate.”

“We have committed to ensuring that all expenses are appropriate, that the rules governing expenses are appropriate and to report back to the public on these matters. Senator Duffy maintains a residence in Prince Edward Island and has deep ties to the province.”

Update 6:22pm. A statement from NDP MP Charlie Angus.

Mike Duffy now says that he may have made a mistake when claiming tens of thousands of dollars of living expenses in Ottawa. If you break the rules, saying “I’m sorry” just doesn’t cut it. There must be consequences. What discipline will the Senator face?

Mr. Duffy’s track record on this is troubling. He denied any problem and ran away from questions. It seems some Senators will do almost anything to avoid accountability.

If any forms were falsified in order to try and get extra expense money, the Senate should immediately refer the matter to the police.

Senator Duffy has also still not addressed the question of whether he has met the obligations to be a Senator from Prince Edward Island.

Conservatives are now sending out inspectors to the homes of EI recipients. Perhaps what they should be doing is sending out inspectors to the homes of Conservative and Liberal Senators.

While Conservatives continue to defend the entitlements of their Senators, the NDP will continue to stand up for Canadian taxpayers.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/doug-finley-roasted/feed/1Senator Fairbairn and public officehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/senator-fairbairn-and-public-office/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/senator-fairbairn-and-public-office/#commentsWed, 29 Aug 2012 13:49:27 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=287007Liberal Senator Jim Munson defends Joyce Fairbairn.
Munson, the Liberal whip in the Senate, said he has no doubt Fairbairn was able to grasp the content of legislation and understand …

Munson, the Liberal whip in the Senate, said he has no doubt Fairbairn was able to grasp the content of legislation and understand what she was voting on. He takes issue with the suggestion that the party deliberately kept her working to somehow save her spot in the Senate. “From my perspective, with the Conservative majority, one vote would not make a difference, but Senator Fairbairn’s vote made a difference to me,” Munson said. “She was well briefed, ready to vote, and knew what she was doing.”

“Any story like this certainly calls into question, in some people’s minds, the whole role of the Senate and it does impact on the Senate. There is no doubt about it,” 72-year-old LeBreton said in an interview Tuesday … “It does present a constitutional dilemma had there been close votes, for instance, so that troubled me and it troubled me that despite a lot of concern expressed by people on our side for Joyce, that we didn’t hear about this till August,” said LeBreton, who expressed her sadness over the situation facing a woman she has known as respected since 1965.

According to the Star, the Liberals say Senator James Cowan, the Liberal leader in the Senate, learned of the declaration of incompetence on August 13. That would be four months after Senator Cowan’s chief of staff signed a document to make himself an agent on Senator Fairbairn’s behalf and six months after Senator Fairbairn’s psychiatrist signed the declaration of incompetence. According to the Star, “Liberal leadership in the Senate had full confidence in Fairbairn throughout the months that she sat in the upper chamber and voted on legislation.”

Whether Senator Fairbairn’s votes could have been pivotal seems besides the point. The first question is this: Should anyone who has been declared incompetent be voting in the Senate or House of Commons? Maybe it’s difficult to answer that question without getting into the specifics of Ms. Fairbairn’s condition at the time, but maybe this is a discussion that has to be had. It’s not a pleasant discussion, but here we are.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/senator-fairbairn-and-public-office/feed/15Live: A very long night for a very long billhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/live-a-very-long-night-for-a-very-long-bill/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/live-a-very-long-night-for-a-very-long-bill/#commentsWed, 13 Jun 2012 20:41:42 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=266888Welcome to Aaron Wherry's live coverage of tonight's C-38 votes

Welcome to live coverage of tonight’s C-38 votes. It was expected that voting would begin around 5:30pm, but some procedural fussing about by the Liberals seems to have delayed those votes by a few hours. Stay tuned throughout the evening (and morning?) as we follow the parliamentary festivities.

4:43pm. If you’re only now tuning in, you just missed a fascinating series of points of order, during which Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux twice asked the Speaker to clarify the rules of the House (Speaker Devolin invited Mr. Lamoureux to read the standing orders) and Bob Rae objected to the Defence Minister’s earlier use of the word “mendaciousness” (Peter MacKay duly stood and withdrew the remark). The House is now at the time reserved each day for the presenting of petitions and will soon move to the final period of report stage debate on C-38.

4:51pm. The New Democrats held a photo op this afternoon to demonstrate how they were preparing for tonight’s votes. Mostly this seems to have involved Nathan Cullen removing his jacket and writing “C-38″ on a giant white pad of paper.

5:04pm. The Liberals have chosen now to discuss Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege. And now there is some discussion between the Speaker, Elizabeth May and Denis Coderre about how long one can speak when responding to a question of privilege.

5:15pm. With Mr. Lamoureux still responding to Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer rises on a point of order to question Mr. Lamoureux’s point of privilege. The Speaker stands and reads the rules pertaining to questions of privilege, specifically that such interventions should be “brief and concise” and that the Speaker has the right to “terminate” the discussion. Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti rises on a point of order to object to Mr. Zimmer’s point of order. Mr. Lamoureux attempts a point of order to respond to Mr. Zimmer, but the Speaker suggests he carry on with his point of privilege, but then Mr. Coderre rises on a point of order to complain about the Speaker’s desire to move things along. The Speaker asserts his impartiality and attempts to straighten this all out, but Mr. Coderre rises on another point of order to clarify his respect for the Speaker, but also to express his desire that Mr. Lamoureux be allowed to give a full response to Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege. Mr. Pacetti rises on a point of order to add his concern that Mr. Lamoureux be allowed to speak fully. The Speaker says he was merely reminding everyone of the rules and gives Mr. Lamoureux five minutes to finish and, finally, we’re now back to Mr. Lamoruex’s point of privilege.

5:30pm. The Speaker stands and calls an end to Mr. Lamoureux’s remarks and attempts to move to the last hour of report stage debate on C-38, but now Mauril Belanger is up on a separate point of privilege.

5:32pm. The Speaker cuts off Mr. Belanger to move to deferred votes on two opposition motions and one private member’s bill. MPs have 30 minutes to report to the chamber.

6:33pm. Conservative MP Roxanne James’ private member’s bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to “to allow the Commissioner to designate an offender as a ‘vexatious complainant’ when the offender files multiple complaints or grievances that are ordinarily of a vexatious or frivolous nature or not made in good faith” passes at report stage by a vote of 194-107. The House now moves to an hour of debate of C-305, Olivia Chow’s private member’s bill on a national transit strategy.

7:44pm. The Speaker has just now ruled on Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege. He found no reason to intervene. (I’ll have the full text up shortly.) The House has now moved to debate of C-38. The latest guess about when voting will begin is midnight.

8:46pm. After going for dinner (the caesar salad at Brixtons is pretty good and you can’t beat the service), I’ve taken up my spot in the House. Debate has concluded and the Speaker is now reading all of the 871 amendments into the record. Each group of amendments is then subject to an oral vote—the opposition MPs yelling “yea” and the government MPs yelling “nay.” The Speaker then judges which side has shouted most, but so long as five MPs then stand, the group of amendments is set aside for a recorded vote. The latest guess is that those votes will start around 11:15pm.

8:49pm. Let the record show that there are eight spectators in the south gallery to witness this reading and shouting.

8:58pm. Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie just asked the House for permission to dispense—ie. to stop reading. She did not find unanimous agreement. There are about three dozen MPs in the House, though it’s not clear how many—if any—are listening. The Liberals are heckling Conservative MP Paul Calandra. Most of those present are fiddling with laptops or tablets. Conservative MP Lois Brown is reading a book.

9:02pm. Mauril Belanger has just risen on a point of order to ask that Deputy Speaker Savoie make sure to read the number of each motion before proceeding so that MPs can follow along.

We will be standing up for transparency and accountability. We will be standing up for environmental protection and our fisheries communities. We will be standing up for retirement security and health-care funding. We will spend 24 straight hours — or more — standing up on behalf of millions of Canadians who sent us to Ottawa to vote against this bill.

9:25pm. Mr. Belanger on another point of order. He seems to think Deputy Speaker Savoie missed something. She duly rereads the motion in question. We’re at motion 119 now. Only 700 or so to go.

9:37pm. I timed him. Deputy Speaker Devolin just read five motions in a single minute. We just passed motion 164.

9:41pm. Mr. Belanger rises on a point of order to say Deputy Speaker Devolin is speaking too fast for the interpreters. Deputy Speaker Devolin seems to have responded by slowing down. It would seem fair to conclude that the Liberals are quite eager to slow this process down as much as possible.

9:49pm. Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner just came in and loaded her desk with food, possibly candy of some kind.

10:09pm. Just passed motion 300.

10:27pm. A few dozen Conservatives just streamed in to lend their voices to a series of oral votes. In the Speaker’s judgment, the nays won all of them, but the requisite number of opposition MPs rose to demand recorded votes. Some MPs are quite enthusiastic yellers.

Speaker reading motion 300 of 871. Since Speaker started at 8:42pm, Shuttle would have orbited Earth once.Go Speaker!

10:47pm. Attendance in the south gallery momentarily peaked at 20, then a few people left. Deputy Speaker Devolin was treated to a standing ovation as he hit motion 500. He wisely did not stop reading to soak in the applause, but kept going.

10:52pm. Elizabeth May rises on a point of order to note that Deputy Speaker Devolin said “the” when he should have said “any” in his reading of a motion. Deputy Speaker Devolin duly corrects himself.

10:58pm. Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton swaps in for Deputy Speaker Devolin and Deputy Speaker Devolin receives a round of applause. Mr. Garneau rises on a point of order to note that Deputy Speaker Stanton forgot to read the motion number. We’re on motion 547 now.

11:03pm. The few dozen MPs in the House are variously lounging about. Watching the House at these moments feels something like watching a zoo exhibit, observing the parliamentarian in his natural habitat. One half expects a zookeeper to come by and toss hunks of raw meat or fish into the enclosure.

11:12pm. Strange things happen after dark here. The NDP’s Christine Moore and Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino, frequent QP opponents, are sitting together and chatting at the far end of the room.

11:27pm. We just passed motion 700. Pat Martin tweets a picture of the scene in the opposition lobby.

11:34pm. Attendance in the south gallery is now at 35. It is actually just about half full. And the reading of motion 800 just received a round of applause from the floor. Momentum is building. In other news, I have been officially reprimanded for my removing my jacket while in the press gallery. I kept my top hat and monocle in place, but apparently that’s not sufficient.

11:57pm. Deputy Speaker Stanton finishes reading motion 871 into the record and receives a round of applause. The nays are now winning a series of oral votes, despite very loud and long attempts by Peter Julian to persuade the Speaker of the yea side. Daryl Kramp and Candice Hoeppner have brought pillows. Rona Ambrose has a Hudson Bay blanket.

12:05am. The Prime Minister strolls in. He has neither pillow nor blanket. He is periodically lending his voice to the shouting though. An NDP MP just tried to start the wave.

12:20am. The yea side has actually won a couple here. Meanwhile, there is a stuffed animal dog in Devinder Shory’s seat.

12:26am. After a full 20 minutes of yelling at regular intervals, the House now proceeds to the deferred recorded divisions. The bells are ringing to bring the MPs to the House. A mere 24 hours or so of actual voting remains.

12:45am. If you step outside the House, it is June 14. Inside the House, it remains June 13. The House does not recognize the normal laws of space and time and so it will remain June 13 until the parliamentary day is concluded.

So you’re out on the town in Ottawa? Leave the pub, come to parliament, and watch us stand up for you and for democracy.

In other news, Michelle Rempel appears to have brought play-doh into the House.

12:54am. Leisure Watch. Peter Van Loan is reading The Best Laid Plans. Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield is playing solitaire on an iPad, as is his parliamentary secretary Randy Kamp.

12:58am. The whips, Gordon O’Connor and Nycole Turmel, walk in to begin the vote. The NDP tries to start the wave again.

1:00am. Thomas Mulcair rises to begin the first of 159 votes.

1:03am. Stephen Harper rises to lead the votes against the amendment.

1:05am. Hmm. We’ve only just noticed that the 11 Conservative MPs seated on the opposition side are not present. Neither is independent MP Peter Goldring. Perhaps the first shift as the government MPs split up House duty.

1:07am. The first motion is defeated 150-133.

1:14am. The second motion is defeated 149-133. It’s unclear how or where the Conservatives lost a vote.

1:19am. Much of the government frontbench, including the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the Finance Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister, are catching up on paperwork.

1:22am. The third motion is defeated 149-133.

1:26am. The clerk calling out the votes just confused Lisa Raitt with Rona Ambrose. Already the foundations of our democracy are beginning to struggle under the strain of this.

1:29am. The fourth motion is defeated 149-133. The previously absent Conservatives just filed in and the next dozen just filed out.

1:32am. Conservative MP Merv Tweed, head in hand, seems to be trying to sleep at his desk between votes.

1:35am. NDP MP Dan Harris seems to have put together an impressive supply of candy.

1:37am. The fifth motion is defeated 150-133, with David Wilks casting the second last vote against.

1:44am. The sixth vote goes to the Conservatives 150-134. Not sure how the opposition picked up a vote.

1:47am. The New Democrats seem to be applauding random Conservatives as they vote. Not sure why. They seem to find it very amusing though.

1:53am. The four Bloc MPs meant to be in favour of the seventh vote, but missed their turn and so the record is now being clarified. The seventh vote goes 248-34, with the Conservatives and New Democrats voting against.

1:56am. With that, the New Democrats are now slow-voting, rising methodically one-by-one to delay the process instead of being on their feet and ready for the clerk to note them. In other news, Conservative MP Mike Lake just snuck a sip of Red Bull.

2:03am. The heckling moves online.

Bob Rae: During the vote, reading Gwyn on Sir John A “a public man should have no resentments” – wish Mr Harper would learn.

James Moore: If we’re quoting former PM’s: “The silent majority does not make a lot of noise; it is content to make history.” -P.E.Trudeau

2:06am. Eighth vote goes to the Conservatives 149-134. Another dozen Conservatives slipped out after the vote. The New Democrats seem to have lost about a dozen as well.

2:11am. Conservative MP Patrick Brown appears to have passed out on his desk.

2:16am. Mr. Brown recovered in time to vote. He is now resting his head on a pillow.

2:17am. 148-124. That vote took about 10 minutes. A smattering of New Democrats just filed out to jeers and moans from the Conservatives. “What about the fish?” asks John Baird.

2:21am. Conservative MP Dick Harris, necktie untied and hung around his neck, just got into it with Nathan Cullen. A Conservative voice, apparently unimpressed with the NDP’s slow-voting, loudly suggested the New Democrats looked “constipated.” Dan Harris advised the Conservatives that things were just getting started. A Conservative voice advised the New Democrats that “Canadians are watching.” Meanwhile, attendance in the south gallery is down to four.

2:29am. Vote #10 concludes and vote #11 begins. The NDP is keeping to its pace. Jamie Nicholls seems particularly concerned about rising as slowly as possible.

2:35am. All three party leaders are still here and the New Democrats and Conservatives continue to insist on applauding theirs when they rise to vote.

2:39am. Vote #11 goes 148-115. Another Conservative shift change and both Bob Rae and Stephen Harper exit. Thomas Mulcair is the last party leader standing.

3:01am. Vote #13 goes 134-110. Scott Brison rises on a point of order to ensure his vote was counted. Mr. Mulcair rises even slower on vote #14. He’s now handing out food from a Ziploc bag to his deputy leaders. Some MPs seem to be concerned about visible displays of food and prefer to sneak bites or handfuls while holding the food under their desks.

3:26am. Lisa Raitt is watching Hell’s Kitchen on her iPad. I think I missed that episode.

3:33am. Vote #16 concludes with the House seeming a bit sleepy, or at least sleepier.. And on that note, I retire to bed. We’ll pick this up in the morning to see how our democracy is faring and whether Mr. Harris has finished his spaceship.

4:05am. Post-script. Just as I was exiting the House, some confusion seems to have resulted in the Liberals failing to stand in sufficient number—five—to force a recorded vote after an oral vote was taken. The Liberals proceeded to vote slowly the next time around, followed by points of order from Mr. Rae and Mr. Coderre on the issue of MPs moving about the House during votes, including deputy Government House leader Tom Lukiwski engaging in a conversation with the Speaker. The Speaker seems now to have put things back on track, though both the New Democrats and Liberals are now slow-voting.

4:22am. The Liberals seem back at a normal voting pace. And with that I really am going to bed. Goodnight.

10:46am. Up and refreshed after six hours of sleep. I see that our democracy continues to churn. Phew. I feared some kind of resolution would be found while I had my eyes closed. The latest vote goes 144-101. According to the studious Pierre-Luc Dusseault, that was #63. Just less than a hundred votes to go. And the New Democrats seem to be voting a bit faster now.

Slipped out a few votes ago to brush my teeth. I’m a new woman! #omnibudget, watch out.

11:42am. In case you were wondering, since it is still Wednesday in the House, Thursday’s schedule is irrelevant, there’ll be no Question Period today or anything else. Assuming the voting wraps up around midnight, the House will adjourn and will resume business on Friday with Thursday having been skipped.

11:45am. Some confusion over voting from the Bloc Quebecois, in terms of who voted when and in what way. Bob Rae stands on a point of order and wonders if we might redo last year’s election.

11:47am. Oh missed this just a few moments ago: Nathan Cullen stood and asked for unanimous consent to pause voting at 2:15pm for Question Period. The Conservatives declined. Mr. Rae is unimpressed.

During the Reform Party 3 day forced vote on the Nishga Treaty, they asked to keep question period. Cons today say no. Hypocrites

12:26pm. I suggested to Dan Harris that he donate his lego Tie Interceptor to the Library of Parliament as an artifact of this moment in democracy. Mr. Harris seems concerned that that would detract from his own collection.

12:38pm. Last night’s ruling on Nathan Cullen’s question of privilege is now posted here, along with my own amateur analysis. We are coming up on the 12-hour mark, last night’s voting having commenced at 1am. Mr. Cullen and opposition whip Nycole Turmel are to speak with reporters at 1pm.

1:58pm. Unshaven and still wearing yesterday’s outfit (grey suit, black tie, red shirt), Mr. Cullen emerged a short while ago to report that New Democrats are “feeling good.”

“We’re also very conscious that as we go through all these votes, these are not just symbols, these are real things that are happening to the laws that guide Canada, be it the protection for our environment that is being reduced, be it employment insurance that is being lost or pensions that are taken away, or the very fact that democracy is being undermined by this government…

“Our point is this, that if we had simply allowed this government to pass this bill without any inconvenience at all, the lesson they would have taken away and Canadians would have taken away is that Parliament is less important than it really is. We must hold government to account. That is our job. That is what Canadians sent us here to do. Not just New Democrats, but I would argue Conservatives as well.”

The New Democrats still think they might be able to rush enough of their MPs into the House to win a vote at some point when the Conservative numbers ebb.

2:12pm. Diane Ablonczy, seemingly passed out on her desk, just roused herself to applaud for the Prime Minister as he led Conservative votes. Having cast her own vote, she has collapsed again on her desk.

2:19pm. The stuffed animal dog is now occupying Conservative MP John Weston’s seat.

2:24pm. Dick Harris still hasn’t tied his tie.

2:31pm. Ms. Ablonczy rouses to vote then returns her head to the pillow on her desk. Meanwhile, Conservative MP Harold Albrecht is visiting with one of his grandchildren in the visitors’ gallery.

2:37pm. A couple Conservative backbenchers have their faces buried in pillows. Probably a suffocation risk. Someone should check to see that they’re still breathing.

2:43pm. John Weston has returned and the stuffed dog is now in Rodney Weston’s spot. It’s unclear if the dog’s vote is being counted each time through.

2:54pm. The Conservatives are beginning to heckle about the absence of Thomas Mulcair. The NDP leader was apparently here from 1am until 10am, before taking a break. There’s been another shift change on the government side and the Prime Minister has taken his break.

3:03pm. Peter MacKay just used his BlackBerry to take a picture of Deepak Obhrai, who is sleeping with the aid of one of those neck pillows. Everyone is regressing to their college years. If Mr. Obhrai doesn’t wake up soon, there’s a good chance people will start writing things in marker on his face.

3:08pm. John Baird seems to be trying to convince Paul Dewar to go grab a drink.

3:17pm. The International Association of Machinists is calling on opposition MPs to walk out on these votes. I believe that would actually just bring this to an end. Without any opposition MPs in the House, the government would likely move to apply the previous count to all subsequent votes and this would be over.

3:21pm. Elizabeth May hasn’t missed a vote yet. Via email, she tells me she’s hoping she can hold on to make all of them.

4:10pm. I slipped out for about 40 minutes and apparently missed a lone protestor who shouted shame at the Conservatives and was promptly dragged out. The New Democrats are now standing and applauding their way through Vote #102.

4:13pm. There is an empty bag of Doritos in the seat normally occupied by Bal Gosal, minister of state for sports.

4:17pm. The House gives a clerk a standing ovation for calling his first vote. A page just delivered a stuffed toy cat to Government whip Gordon O’Connor. Now the Prime Minister is investigating the cat. Mr. O’Connor seems charmed by the gift.

4:21pm. I’ll be on CTV’s Power Play today at precisely 5:14pm. Watch and see if I still possess the ability to speak in complete sentences.

5:31pm. Thomas Mulcair returns to the House and receives a standing ovation from both the Conservatives and New Democrats.

5:33pm. Conservative MP Patrick Brown is napping again on his desk.

5:37pm. The Conservatives seem quite concerned with figuring out which party leader has been in the House for the most votes. Elizabeth May has been here for every vote. So apparently she gets to be prime minister now.

5:53pm. Mr. Baird just asked Senator Marjory LeBreton, seated in the gallery, if she would order him a pizza. Meanwhile, there are two staffers in the NDP leader’s gallery who seem to be taking attendance on clipboards.

6:54pm. Nycole Turmel rises on a point of order to suggest Conservative MP Royal Galipeau was not in his seat in time to participate in the last vote. Mr. Galipeau says he was in his seat, but NDP MP Guy Caron was not in his seat. Mr. Caron rises and acknowledges that he might not have been in his seat in time and so if his vote has to be disqualified, so be it.

6:58pm. The stuffed dog is now perched quite prominently on Rodney Weston’s desk.

7:17pm. Joe Oliver on a point of order. He suggests two members of the opposition made a Nazi salute in the direction of the prime minister while the Conservatives were applauding the start of another vote. Denis Coderre stands and says he did no such thing and does not want the opposition punished en masse. A Bloc MP agrees with both Mr. Oliver and Mr. Coderre, but suggests Mr. Oliver should identify the MPs he is referring to. Liberal MP Wayne Easter says no Nazi salute was made and tries to clarify the gesture involved. John Baird leads a chant of “shame!” from the government side. Deputy Speaker Savoie says a Nazi salute would be offensive to everyone in the House and decides to move on.

7:25pm. The government side earlier presented Labour Minister Lisa Raitt and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver to reporters for comment on the proceedings.

Ms. Raitt was very concerned with all the time these votes were taking.

The novelty of staying up for 24 hours really isn’t a novel thing for a woman with kids, quite frankly. I’ve done this. And I guess the point is that this isn’t a slumber party and this is not cramming for your final exams by staying up all night. This is a very serious matter. This is the economic performance of the country. And it’s a serious issue and my concern is that I do believe the opposition is making a mockery of the process. And the reason being is, quite frankly, the budget will pass. We have the numbers, we have the votes. And the process is going to continue. And our EAP, our Economic Action Plan, actually reflects the mandate that we did receive from the Canadian public. We talked about this very clearly in the election last year and today is the implementation of it. What we’ve seen in the past number of hours, since last night at 12:55am, and indeed from yesterday afternoon is a lot of delay tactics from the opposition, a lot of political games and a lot of different methods of making this inevitable situation go longer than it necessarily has to. But we are here to ensure that we’re creating jobs, that we’re promoting growth and we have the long-term plan for the country and make sure that we have prosperity … Our government has to be ready to act, just like we were ready to act in 2008. So what we see today is the opposition standing in the way of us being able to move on with the Economic Action Plan 2012.

Mr. Oliver was sort of also concerned.

We just want to get on with it, while, of course, the opposition is entitled, in a parliamentary democracy, to engage in these sorts of tactics, we find it, you know, a bit of a waste of time, in a sense, but it’s time that they’re entitled to spend, but really the concern that I personally have is that they should be using these tactics to oppose a critical piece of legislation, which will advance Canadian security and prosperity for decades, for generations, to come.

The ministers were then asked whether they were suggesting the extent of today’s votes were going to impact the country. Ms. Raitt clarified that the message was that the government would prefer the opposition move at a normal pace to finish these votes so that routine parliamentary business can resume. The reporter asked again to specify the problem. Mr. Oliver then interjected.

Well, let me be clear here, I wasn’t saying that economic growth in Canada and jobs were being jeopardized by an extra 24 hours. That wasn’t the point. What would jeopardize the growth is the inability to pass the legislation or the requirement to undermine its major thrusts. I just pointed out that the opposition have every right to spend the time, to force us to go through over 150 individual votes, to stand up very slowly and sit down very slowly. I guess they’re trying to make a point and the population will decide whether that point is memorable and whether that point is appropriate. I’m not trying to overstate that, the fact that we didn’t get any sleep for the last 24 hours is not really the point at all. And frankly, I don’t think I’d want to do this on a regular basis, but the morale is actually great in our caucus. You know, some of us may have a hoarse throat at this point, but that’s not the issue at all. The issue is we’ve got this very important piece legislation we want to get through and somehow they want to block it.

It was then suggested that perhaps all this attention on all this bill was a positive for the government. Ms. Raitt seemed to agree with this point, suggesting that a “clear delineation” was being established between government and opposition. A reporter then asked the ministers to square Mr. Oliver’s perspective with Ms. Raitt’s perspective, was this legitimate part of the process or gamesmanship. Ms. Raitt went first.

What it is is a reflection on the attitude of the parties in the opposition. We take the economy very seriously and they’re going to play games and try to delay and try to stall something that is absolutely inevitable in a majority government … They always have a choice to work on behalf of the economy and work together for the country, when they know the reality of what exactly is happening and they know the economy is fragile and they know that the world is in difficult circumstances and we have to be ready for it. So they always a choice and their choice is to play games and to use tactics and that’s unacceptable.

Ms. Raitt then turned and left. Mr. Oliver remained.

The fact that they have a right doesn’t mean it is right. And they have to make a decision and in the end the population will decide whether their tactic is appropriate. I don’t think, frankly, that this particular tactic is the biggest thing in the world. I don’t think that’s what we should really be focusing on too much. At the end of the day, when an election comes up, the population will judge this government on what it has done for Canadians, what its plan has been, what its accomplishments have been and what the legislation has pushed forward will be. And they will forget about whether it took, you know, we sat in the House for 24 hours. That’s not going to be remembered three and a half years from now. It may not even be remembered for more than a few days.

7:27pm. Ms. Raitt also confirmed that she’s managed to watch five episodes of Hell’s Kitchen.

9:36pm. After going for dinner, I’m back in the House for the exciting conclusion. Apparently while I was away, Gordon O’Connor asked if the final 20 votes might be skipped. Nathan Cullen said only if the government would agree to hold Question Period instead. Agreement could not be found, so the votes continue. We just finished Vote #144. Fifteen or so to go.

9:39pm. The yeas were just declared winners on an oral vote. Alas, sufficient MPs stood to force a recorded vote and so now that amendment will be defeated.

9:41pm. John Baird just asked Gordon O’Connor for a “hall pass.”

9:44pm. Dick Harris still hasn’t tied his tie.

10:02pm. Five NDP MPs have apparently been present for every single vote: Fin Donnelly, Jinny Sims, Mathieu Ravignat, Matthew Dube and Jasbir Sandhu. On the government side, it’s believed Peter Van Loan, who has missed only one vote, has the best attendance.

10:08pm. Midway through the ninth-last vote. John Weston has some incredible bed head.

10:11pm. Liberal MP Geoff Regan rises on a point of order to note that the clerk calling out the vote confused him with Wayne Easter.

10:16pm. The New Democrats are back to slow-voting. The Conservatives are jeering and groaning. This vote has to do with the Kyoto Implementation Act.

10:19pm. Shelly Glover just seemed to heckle the press gallery with a request that one of us write about the NDP’s methodical approach to voting.

10:21pm. NDP MP Jean Rousseau just stood to vote and turned his back to the House.

10:22pm. The Liberal and Bloc MPs are now standing and waiting for the New Democrats to finish.

10:24pm. Just before this vote, Francoise Boivin rose on a point of order that was difficult to hear from the gallery. Her argument apparently was that since the legality of Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto is before the courts, out of respect for the separation of powers, it would have appropriate to put this issue in abeyance until the courts can rule. The Speaker dismissed the complaint and moved on.

10:28pm. Megan Leslie just managed a fist pump while yelling “yea” on that oral vote.

10:30pm. The consensus in the press gallery is that if you’re PVRing this at home, set it to stop around 11:30.

10:38pm. Once again fighting the law of gravity, Mr. MacKay is trying to sleep in a sitting position. Oh wait, he’s up and he’s clapping and he’s cast his vote. Back in his seat and, after flirting with a magazine, he’s nodding off again.

10:41pm. Mr. MacKay’s head droops, then snaps back up. Lisa Raitt is snoozing on her desk. Denis Lebel is holding his head in his hands. The cabinet seems to be coming apart. Mr. Harper continues to go over his paperwork.

10:48pm. The NDP’s Pierre-Luc Dusseault seems to be the official record keeper of this day.

10:52pm. Various Conservatives heckle the NDP’s Jinny Sims to get off the phone. Michael Chong wags his finger to indicate that that is not allowed.

11:14pm. Nathan Cullen rises on a point of order to thank the House staff, unanimous standing ovation ensues.

11:15pm. Now the vote on the main bill at report stage. Conservatives yell “yea,” New Democrats yell “nay.” Stephen Harper leads the Conservatives and receives a standing ovation and some whistling. Huge cheer for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

11:20pm. Thomas Mulcair leads the New Democrats, standing ovation and several “woohs.” The New Democrats continue applauding in unison as the votes are called. Charlie Angus briefly raises a fist in the air. Jamie Nicholls puts his hand on his heart, looks to the ceiling and mouths the word “Jack.” Huge cheer as the last New Democrat is counted.

11:23pm. Now the Liberal’s turn to cheer. Marc Garneau hugs Bob Rae.

11:24pm. Elizabeth May stands to cast the last opposition vote and cries as the opposition MPs stand to salute her.

11:25pm. Conservatives cheer as the final result is counted. New Democrats thump their desks and chant “2015″ en francais.

11:26pm. The Speaker moves to adjournment proceedings, the debate that concludes each sitting day. Christine Moore stands to lead the debate. Cheers of “Har! Per! Har! Per!” can be heard coming from the government lobby.

11:29pm. Ms. Moore is hectoring the government side about the F-35 procurement.

11:30pm. Chris Alexander offers the government response. Chants of “2015″ can be heard from the opposition lobby.

11:34pm. Let it be noted that there are four spectators in the south gallery.

11:35pm. Ms. Moore suggests the government is not meeting its commitments in promising to table new cost estimates for the F-35 in the fall.

11:37pm. Mr. Alexander says an independent audit will take a few months. Now to a discussion of Air Canada.

11:39pm. The New Democrat offering the official opposition’s comments isn’t standing at his assigned and I confess I can’t remember who this is.

11:42pm. Oh, it’s Mike Sullivan. Kellie Leitch is offering the government’s response. This is essentially a debate over government intervention in collective bargaining.

11:44pm. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted and the House stands adjourned until 10am tomorrow. The calendar in the middle of the room still reads June 13.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/live-a-very-long-night-for-a-very-long-bill/feed/34No rushhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/no-rush/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/no-rush/#commentsThu, 08 Dec 2011 15:36:32 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=228937While the omnibus crime bill was rushed through the House so fast even the Public Safety Minister couldn’t keep up, the Conservative-controlled Senate will now take its time before passing…

While the omnibus crime bill was rushed through the House so fast even the Public Safety Minister couldn’t keep up, the Conservative-controlled Senate will now take its time before passing it.

“The commitment that the government made was to pass the crime bill within 100 sitting days,” LeBreton said. “It’s sometime in mid-March. ”We fully expect it will be debated in the Senate, and will go to committee, legal and constitutional affairs, and it will be there I expect for quite some time.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/no-rush/feed/10Celebrating women in Canadian military forceshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/celebrating-women-in-canadian-military-forces/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/celebrating-women-in-canadian-military-forces/#commentsTue, 25 Oct 2011 00:54:38 +0000Mitchel Raphaelhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=221434Rona Ambrose, Minister for Status of Women, hosted a reception in Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella’s salon in honour Women’s History Month. The gathering was to celebrate women in Canadian military…

Rona Ambrose, Minister for Status of Women, hosted a reception in Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella’s salon in honour Women’s History Month. The gathering was to celebrate women in Canadian military forces.

(Left to right) Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin, Leader of the Government in the Canadian Senate Marjory LeBreton and Rona Ambrose.

For a loner, Stephen Harper works surprisingly well with others. The Prime Minister won his job by earning the loyalty of the old Reform party even though he used to be Preston Manning’s most persistent internal critic. He ended a decade’s rivalry with the Progressive Conservatives after doing more than almost anyone to fuel the rivalry.

He has wooed former Liberals into his caucus, sent New Democrat Gary Doer to Washington as Canada’s ambassador, and even put the occasional former Bloc Québécois member on the government payroll. No premier except Newfoundland’s now-retired Danny Williams has seen any political profit in antagonizing him. Harper drives his political opponents so crazy that it’s less frequently noticed how often he makes allies.

But the flip side of that coin is that his alliances rarely last. He hardly talks to former advisers like Tom Flanagan. He is on his fourth chief of staff, sixth communications director, and fifth foreign minister since he became Prime Minister. Jean Chrétien kept Eddie Goldenberg at his side for nearly 40 years. Paul Martin kept his 1990 Liberal leadership team around him until the day he retired. Harper’s team is like George Washington’s axe in the old joke, its blade replaced three times and its handle 26. All that remains is the ability to chop down opponents.

So the Harper team we are telling you about this week is this week’s Harper team, or this season’s. It reflects the political landscape, the boss’s agenda and personality, and the kind of year the Conservatives think they will have. But for this crucial time in Harper’s career, when he enjoys a firmer grasp on power than ever before, here’s the starting lineup.

The first man on our list, Nigel Wright, is new to Ottawa and the spotlight. The Harvard-educated lawyer and Bay Street business executive is Harper’s chief of staff. He replaced Guy Giorno on Jan. 1, then stepped back again, taking a secondary role during the spring election campaign. Wright runs the Prime Minister’s Office and, with the odd phone call, will yank the steering wheel in any minister’s office that needs it. Harper retains much of his fondness for governing from the centre, so Wright matters because he is now running the centre.

The other three are cabinet ministers. That in itself is new: interviews with several senior Conservatives suggest Harper’s PMO is already less overbearing than the versions that endured constant minority government uncertainty, and that at least a few ministers have more latitude to take strong initiatives.

The oldest of the ministerial trio is just 43, and Jason Kenney is also the likeliest to charge into a fight like a bull. The minister of citizenship and immigration has already picked a fight this year with Amnesty International over his plan to enlist the public’s help in identifying and rounding up fugitives suspected of hiding in Canada from their alleged past behaviour as war criminals. He fancies himself the guardian of small-c conservative orthodoxy in the Harper government, and the autonomy he enjoys within Harper’s government has no match.

John Baird, 42, doesn’t want autonomy. Since he moved to federal politics from a career in Ontario’s legislature in 2006, he has promoted himself, in public and in private, as Stephen Harper’s fiercest defender. “There’s nobody more loyal,” one adviser to a Conservative cabinet minister said on condition of anonymity. “He will dive into any controversy, no matter how ugly, and defend the PM down the line. That’s been noticed.” Now, after stints as environment minister and government House leader, Baird has the job his friends say he long coveted: foreign minister for a Prime Minister who increasingly sees foreign affairs as an area where this government can make a mark.

The youngest of the quartet we’ve selected faces a balancing act. James Moore, 35, is the heritage minister, which puts him in charge of institutions (the CBC) and activities (dancing in public) some Conservatives aren’t sure they like. Moore is a committed advocate for the arts. His Canadian movie nights have become a regular highlight of the Ottawa social calendar, and he’s planning to expand the concept with songwriters’ circles, but that only shows that one of his most skeptical audiences is the caucus he sits with in the Centre Block.

The four men contrast in their styles and priorities, but they also have a few things in common. All four are bachelors, which means only that they can devote truly extraordinary amounts of time to their roles. Moore flies home to B.C. every weekend and, as lead political minister for a province that has increasingly become a Conservative bastion, logs a lot of road time up and down the coast.

Kenney left the Conservative war room in this spring’s campaign after spending three campaigns helping to run the joint, in part because it was impractical to hope he would ever match a campaign’s rise-and-shine schedule. Kenney is a champion night owl, rarely up before 11 a.m., but often sending emails to colleagues long past 4 a.m.

Which means Kenney usually gets to bed at about the same time Nigel Wright is hitting the pavement for a morning run that often covers the length of a half-marathon. “Driven” is the adjective most often used to describe Wright, along with “modest.” “He could be sitting in that chair over there,” the Conservative ministerial staffer said, “and you wouldn’t notice him.” Together, Kenney the night owl and Wright the morning runner ensure essentially round-the-clock alertness for this government, as though it were outsourcing part of its workload each night to India.

This is not the same as saying Harper has a firm policy of hiring only armies of bachelors to do his bidding. His previous communications director, Dimitri Soudas, and his wife had three children during his nine years on Harper’s staff; he made a point of resigning in time to walk his daughter Georgia to her first day of school on Sept. 6. Young Conservative staffers have, on balance, been likelier to marry off and start families at a young age than their Liberal predecessors a decade earlier.

But infinite flexibility and a bottomless appetite for work do help one get ahead in Harper’s Ottawa. Both will be needed this autumn and in the years ahead. Nobody is entirely sure how the new majority government will change things, but no Conservative is expecting a free ride.

“A majority government does not mean easy sailing for our government,” Moore wrote in an exchange of emails with Maclean’s. “We have an ambitious official Opposition, a smaller but experienced Liberal party, a base that expects results, and the general public who is anxious about the economy.”

Harper made it clear during the campaign that he needs to balance the budget, though he was relentlessly unclear about how he’ll do it. “Choices will be made that won’t be popular to some,” Moore wrote, “so ministers will have to know their files, defend their choices, and communicate our decisions.”

The main forum for those choices will be the little-understood cabinet committee structure of the Harper government. In a conscious decision to reduce the procedural confusion that characterized Paul Martin’s tenure as prime minister, Harper cut the number of cabinet committees drastically in 2006. Two central steering committees, operations and priorities and planning, control most of the business. At first only four policy committees met occasionally to feed ideas and proposals to the central committees. Now there are six.

Only four ministers—Kenney, Moore, Transportation Minister Denis Lebel and the government’s Senate den mother, Marjorie LeBreton—sit on both the operations and the priorities and planning committees. The full cabinet almost never meets. So if you want to find power in Harper’s Ottawa, read those committee lists.

The operations committee meets on Mondays. It’s for crisis management and hot topics. It is also where parliamentary strategy and the government’s public communications plans are discussed. In fact, one staffer said the PMO communications director often makes suggestions on communications plans to “ops,” which then decides whether to proceed as the nominal communications boss wants. It was the ops committee that met during the 2008 coalition crisis to figure out how Harper should handle the most dangerous threat he has yet faced to his hold on power.

Traditionally in Conservative governments, the deputy prime minister has been chairman of ops. Harper doesn’t designate deputy prime ministers, but he made Jim Prentice his ops chair from 2006 to 2010. Now that Prentice has left Ottawa to be a vice-president at CIBC, the new ops chair is Jason Kenney.

Priorities and planning, the so-called P&P, meets on Tuesdays, with the Prime Minister at the head of the table and LeBreton to his right. It tries to take a longer view. Its 13 members, several sources said, constitute “the real cabinet.”

It’s a mark of Harper’s governing style that even at this level of functional microcosm, he maintains a certain balance among the Conservative movement’s constituent factions. The de facto deputy prime minister is Jason Kenney, one of Ottawa’s most ardent social conservatives. But Moore, who has repeatedly voted to support same-sex marriage and who snubs SunTV News for the CBC, is cast as a near-equal. LeBreton, a Brian Mulroney appointee who used to send reporters long emails detailing Harper’s shortcomings when she and he belonged to different parties, is always on hand to temper the youngsters’ enthusiasms with the lessons of experience.

Wright has been chief of staff for less than a year, and since April a series of interruptions has kept him from putting a clear imprint on the PMO. But many of the people he works with expect his PMO to be a less dominant force in Conservatives’ lives than its predecessors.

Harper’s first chief of staff, Ian Brodie, was a long-standing friend of the PM’s who imposed strict message discipline on the entire government, often telephoning MPs directly to warn them when they were getting out of line. His successor, Guy Giorno, gave the government a more sharply partisan edge and maintained firm control as the government weathered the partly self-inflicted coalition crisis, the global economic upheaval of 2008-09, and the massive spending stimulus that followed.

Giorno’s record speaks for itself. When he was done he chaired the campaign that won Harper a majority. But Conservatives now recall the extraordinary attention he sometimes devoted, perhaps to blow off steam as much as anything else, to trivial details like staffers’ job titles. Wright, by contrast, “has more of a sense of what’s important and really needs his involvement. He has a vision of where the country should be in 2015.”

Wright was managing director of Onex Corporation before coming to Ottawa. His business background and the svelte figure he cuts in a tailored suit have led many observers to assume he’s an old-style Bay Street Tory with no particular interest in social matters. Big mistake. “He’s an Anglo-Catholic,” one former Hill staffer notes. “There’s a certain cabal in our government of Vatican II rejectionist Catholics,” which includes, but isn’t limited to, Kenney and much of his own ministerial staff.

“Let’s put it this way,” the former staffer said. “Nigel is not going to pick up the phone and berate a minister for being too right-wing. That will never happen.”

But this can be stated more generally. Many Conservatives expect Wright to spend less time berating ministers for anything. Indeed, a lot of the strong personalities who shaped Harper’s early years have gone from the PMO. The list includes Patrick Muttart, his most important electoral strategist; communications kingpins Soudas and Kory Teneycke; Jenni Byrne, who used to be in charge of “issues management” (putting out fires).

In their place are “pleasant people who don’t really push hard,” the former staffer said, including policy director Rachel Curran and Harper’s principal spokesman, Andrew MacDougall. The heat of minority-government combat made some of the old crew into household names, at least in Ottawa’s geekier households. “Now, most cabinet ministers wouldn’t recognize these names,” the former staffer said.

Probably some of the PM’s current staff, including his soft-spoken chief, will discover iron in them that few suspected as the government navigates the next half-dozen crises. But in the meantime, a calmer centre means new opportunity for “the boldness of an individual minister really sinking his teeth into a file,” as one source put it. Kenney, Moore and Baird have some of Ottawa’s sharpest teeth. It will ensure they make their mark.

Well, probably. “Our focus will continue to be on the economy,” Moore said. “However, we’re always mindful of what Harold Macmillan said when asked what the greatest challenge is for a prime minister: ‘Events, my dear boy, events.’ ”

Five more who matter

Of course, even for someone who plays things as close as Stephen Harper, it takes more than a team of four to run a government. Here are a few others to watch in Ottawa.

Marjory LeBreton: She knows what a government can get away with and when it must move boldly.

Tony Clement: He wanted to be liked. Now he’s head of Treasury with a mandate to cut.

Ray Novak: A committed monarchist who’s said to have driven the decision to put “royal” back.

Diane Finley: Minister plays key role in policies that appeal to parents and drive leftists crazy.

“I happen to think that Canadians can be a little too complacent and pacific,” says Mr. Milewski, the lone-wolf outsider slotted in among the power-lunchers at Hy’s Steakhouse. “Our job as reporters is not to meekly accept whatever answer we’re given, but to challenge and provoke and press.”

Mr. Milewski was, somewhat famously, shouted down by Conservative partisans during a media availability with the Prime Minister during the last campaign. He has since been singled out for not showing proper deference to Mr. Harper.

Fans of irony will note that a decade ago it was Conservative MPs—including Stephen Harper—who rallied to Mr. Milewski’s cause when the CBC journalist was hounding Jean Chretien.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/its-all-fun-and-games-until-someone-demands-an-answer/feed/9Strategic votinghttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/strategic-voting/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/strategic-voting/#commentsTue, 19 Apr 2011 17:54:46 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=185597The CAW has picked 50 ridings. The Conservative are focused on 30.
So focused are the Conservatives on this frequently updated list of 30 races across the country that, according …

So focused are the Conservatives on this frequently updated list of 30 races across the country that, according to Tory Senator Marjory Lebreton, these are the only ridings in which the party is conducting opinion polling to gauge voter intentions. National polls such as those published in the media are handy for the public, she said, but the real races are being fought street by street, largely in the suburban enclaves of the country.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/tony-at-50/feed/7‘So misinformed’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/so-misinformed/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/so-misinformed/#commentsMon, 07 Jun 2010 17:24:36 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=131454In this new era of ministerial accountability, Senator James Cowan wrote to the Prime Minister last week to lament that Mr. Harper’s spokesman had publicly misstated the record of this…

In this new era of ministerial accountability, Senator James Cowan wrote to the Prime Minister last week to lament that Mr. Harper’s spokesman had publicly misstated the record of this Senate—and to explain exactly which pieces of legislation the upper chamber has passed this session. Mr. Cowan then pressed the matter at the Senate’s QP, eliciting the following from Senator Marjory LeBreton, government leader in the Senate.

I thank Senator Cowan for the question. I saw the article in La Presse yesterday and wondered how Mr. Soudas could be so misinformed about the work of the Senate. I raised the matter with colleagues in cabinet and in caucus. They acknowledged the great work done in the Senate and that more government bills have passed the Senate than the House of Commons. They are well aware of this effort. I have not had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Soudas and I regret that he was so misinformed. When I do speak to him directly, I intend to report that fact to him.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/post-throne-speech-party/feed/6Black History Month on the Hillhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/black-history-month-on-the-hill/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/black-history-month-on-the-hill/#commentsFri, 05 Feb 2010 22:59:10 +0000Mitchel Raphaelhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=105717A special reception was held on the Hill to mark the beginning of Black History Month. This year marked the 150th anniversary of William Hall receiving the Victoria Cross. He…

A special reception was held on the Hill to mark the beginning of Black History Month. This year marked the 150th anniversary of William Hall receiving the Victoria Cross. He was the first black person, first Nova Scotian, and first Canadian sailor to receive the award. A special stamp was unveiled to honour Hall.

The Direct Sellers Association of Canada (DSA) held a reception in 200 West Block that featured tables filled with things Tupperware and Mary Kay products. Public Safetly Minister Peter Van Loan (left) with DSA president Ross Creber.

Speaker Peter Milliken.

Conservative Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton.

NDP MP Tony Martin.

NDP MP David Christopherson.

Bloc MP Nicole Demers (left).

Conservative MP James Lunney.

The glam Kenzie Potter, director of parliamentary affairs in government House Leader Jay Hill’s office.

The most entertaining parts of Sheeple, Garth Turner’s awkwardly titled account of his most recent time in politics, are almost definitely the previously undisclosed bits of private conversation and internal discussion Turner claims to have been party to. If only because truly candid, available-for-public-consumption comment from a politician is otherwise so rare.

Herein, a brief collection of Sheeple’s highlights in this regard. Note: some adult language follows.

“This is the chance we have. Don’t be tentative. Seize the moment now. Leader, life is not a rehearsal.”
—Unnamed Liberal urging Stephane Dion to bring down the government in June 2008

“I just watched Duffy and it was terrible. I’m very disappointed with you. Why are you trying to screw us?”
—Conservative MP Steven Fletcher after Turned expressed disappointment with David Emerson’s floor-crossing

“To put it charitably, you were independent during the campaign. I don’t need a media star in my caucus. I was going to offer you something, a role, something I had that is delicate, something important. But now I’m not going to anymore. Instead we will just see what happens, what you do, over the next few weeks.”
—Stephen Harper, meeting with Turner after the Emerson controversy

“You’re a journalist and we all know journalists make bad politicians. Politicians know how to stick to a message. That’s how they are successful. Journalists think they always have to tell the truth.”
—Harper, continued

“I’m a blunt person. I heard your comments on Canada AM, and this freelance commenting of yours has to end. The public undermining has to end. There was nothing in our platform that was against floor-crossing. If you want to fuck with us, we will certainly fuck with you. Do you want to sit as an independent? Then we can arrange that. Count on it … Let me make this clear. I am telling you, you will not give any more media interviews. I am telling you, you will stop writing the blog. And I’m telling you that you’ll issue a press release today praising the prime minister’s appointment of Emerson. Are you clear?”
—Ian Brodie, then-chief-of-staff

“You should be less ambitious. You should try harder to get along. A lot of these guys are suspicious of you, you know, with the media contacts you’ve got and the profile. Maybe you should spend more time, and take a few of them out for dinner. Lie low, you know? Just stay out of the headlines, below the radar. Lay off the blog, and I’m sure over time things will change.”
—Conservative MP Gord Brown

“My privileges as a member are being compromised. I’m afraid to speak now because I just don’t know if everything I say is being written and will be published that night.”
—Conservative MP Jeff Watson arguing that Turner should be kicked out of the party’s Ontario caucus

“We play as a team or we lose as a team. We have no room for an independent thinker on our team.”
—Conservative MP Guy Lauzon

“You’re here to be a team player and you bet it’s a problem if you’re not supporting your colleagues. You have to be a team player. If you’re not, then get out.”
—Conservative MP Larry Miller

“You owe a duty to everyone. To the team. The team comes first.”
—Finance Minister Jim Flaherty

“What Garth has to learn is that you’ve got to support the prime minister, absolutely no matter what.”
—Senator Marjory LeBreton

“We may not like some of what Garth says, but it sure as is his right to say it.”
—Conservative MP David Tilson

“There will be impacts in some of your ridings. They will affect people, and you may be tempted to talk about them. But don’t. Anyone who has anything to say about this will soon find out they have a very short political career.”
—Harper, announcing program spending cuts during a caucus meeting

“So what bullshit about the prime minister are you blogging now? And would you happen to be webcasting from your glasses right now?”
—Conservative MP James Moore, seeing Turner using his blackberry after a caucus meeting

“Mr. Chairman, we have to talk about Garth Turner. The media may love him, but he’s hurting this party and this government by opening his mouth. Who does he think he is? Who is Garth Turner to tell us what we should be doing here?”
—Conservative MP John Baird

“Are you writing about me?”
—Baird, referencing a blog post of Turner’s that described some MPs as longing for the benefits of a cabinet post

“Nobody asked Garth Turner to have any ideas, or to run around and ask people what they think. We had an election, and we have a platform, and that’s what we think. You are undermining every one of us. You have no right. No right.”
—Lauzon

“You have caused a lot of trouble. This is now on the front page of La Presse. The ADQ has made negative comments about you, and this is very bad. You said that separatists are lazy, but you cannot do that. You will write on your blog that you are sorry…”
—Stephane Dion

At this year’s Politics & the Pen gala, the Writers’ Trust of Canada awarded the $25,000 Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for political writing to James Orbinski for An Imperfect Offering: Humanitarian Action in the Twenty-first Century. Last year, Maxime Bernier arrived at the event with Julie Couillard in a tight gold dress. Times have changed. This year Bernier was spotted walking in with someone a little less flamboyant: fellow Tory MP Ted Menzies, wearing a bow tie and cummerbund in his family’s tartan. One MP quipped that Couillard really should have been invited, noting that she did, in fact, write a book. At this glitzy A-list event filled with writers and politicians, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, Transport Minister John Baird, and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty all spent time greeting the glamorous Stefania Capovilla, who was attending her first Politics & the Pen. Capovilla knows these politicians’ true colours: she’s their hairstylist. She coifs a virtual who’s who list of Ottawa’s political elite thanks to PMO staffer Aaron Campbell, who first visited her while the Conservatives were in opposition and then started recommending her to others. She even cuts Stephen Harper’s hair. The gala’s entertainment was provided by comedian Brent Butt from Corner Gas, who was seated next to Laureen Harper. Butt doesn’t understand why, having had two sitting PMs on the show, he still has to pay taxes. During his routine, the lights kept going on and off. The mystery was solved when it turned out that Mrs. Harper’s RCMP guard was leaning on the light switch in the Fairmont Château Laurier ballroom.

Trudeau can, Ignatieff can’t

On the same night as Politics & the Pen was the annual All-Party Party organized by NDP MP Peter Stoffer. Everyone who works on the Hill, from very underpaid staffers (unless they are unionized NDP workers) to the cleaners and security, was invited. Stoffer had an RCMP band playing and had arranged eclectic door prizes that included an orthopaedic back rest from the Canadian Chiropractic Association, a decorated egg from the South African High Commission, and a plate from the Iranian Embassy. The event raised more than $7,000 for leukemia research. Stoffer got to bed at 2 a.m. and was up again at 6 a.m. “I haven’t had a good sleep since the original Woodstock,” says the Nova Scotia MP. Attending both big events that night was Justin Trudeau, sporting a bow tie he always ties himself. “Wearing a clip-on bow tie is like wearing underwear under a kilt,” quipped Trudeau, who wears a kilt on occasion. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, who was spotted later at Politics & the Pen wearing a clip-on bow tie, confessed he couldn’t tie one himself if his life depended on it. Perhaps he might want to do what Greg MacEachern (former aide to Belinda Stronach, now with Summa Strategies) does: go to Holt Renfrew and ask them to tie it for you.

I’ll get my own water, thanks

This year’s Senate pages were recently sworn in and are now slowly getting into routines that include fetching water for senators. Well, for most of them. Tory Senate leader Marjory LeBreton says she never asks pages for water. She used to be a staffer on the Hill, and is sympathetic about asking folks to do menial tasks. If she has to speak and has no water, she just looks for a clean full glass at another senator’s empty seat.

‘Slumdog’ meets Calgary

Before boarding a flight from Calgary to Toronto, Environment Minister Jim Prentice’s wife, Karen Prentice, spotted Slumdog Millionaire star Dev Patel among her fellow passengers. When she asked for an autograph, Patel told her he was in Calgary to renew the visa he needed to work on his next film in the U.S and to study a script. Patel said he didn’t leave his hotel room for three days because the city was too cold.

The Writers’ Trust of Canada handed out their annual $25,000 Shaughnessy Cohen Prize honouring political writing excellence to James Orbinski for An Imperfect Offering: Humanitarian Action in the Twenty-first Century at the annual Politics and the Pen gala dinner in the Fairmont Château Laurier ballroom. Politics and the Pen is one of Ottawa’s A-list events and brings out top politicians, including Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt and Transport Minister John Baird.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/politics-and-the-pen-plus-the-cabinet-ministers-hairdresser/feed/50Senate pages and bagpipeshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/senate-pages-and-bagpipes/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/senate-pages-and-bagpipes/#commentsSun, 08 Mar 2009 22:32:43 +0000Mitchel Raphaelhttp://blog.macleans.ca/?p=41688The new Senate pages were recently sworn in with pomp and bagpipes. Here are some of them with Senator Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Some of…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/senate-pages-and-bagpipes/feed/11BTC: The inevitablehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/btc-the-inevitable/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/btc-the-inevitable/#commentsTue, 12 Aug 2008 14:48:03 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=4725Once again, from the desk of Liberal Robert Thibault.
“I would like to clarify my statement that appeared in the Hill Times this week. My comment was not meant to…

“I would like to clarify my statement that appeared in the Hill Times this week. My comment was not meant to be gender-specific and I in no way intended it to be interpreted in that way. If anything I said can be interpreted as sexist, I unequivocally and wholeheartedly apologize and withdraw my comments. I have always been a strong supporter of women in politics and want to encourage not hinder their participation in the public sphere.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/btc-the-inevitable/feed/17BTC: He was speaking metaphorically though, right?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/btc-he-was-speaking-metaphorically-though-right/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/btc-he-was-speaking-metaphorically-though-right/#commentsTue, 12 Aug 2008 02:15:01 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=4705Mr. Thibault seems quite determined to establish a new political standard for shortest amount of time between apologies.
(Related: The UK Tea Council’s tips for making a perfect brew.)…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/btc-he-was-speaking-metaphorically-though-right/feed/5The Commons: The ghosts of statesmen pasthttp://www.macleans.ca/authors/aaron-wherry/the-commons-the-ghosts-of-statesmen-past/
http://www.macleans.ca/authors/aaron-wherry/the-commons-the-ghosts-of-statesmen-past/#commentsTue, 27 May 2008 23:27:21 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=1375Joe Clark gets his portrait, Maxime Bernier is merely hangedThe Scene.… Not that anyone expected to see him within a kilometer of this place, but, for the record, Maxime

The Scene. Not that anyone expected to see him within a kilometer of this place, but, for the record, Maxime Bernier was not in his newly-assigned seat when Question Period was declared open at 2:15pm this afternoon.

Which is surely his loss. For he missed quite the show.

Rising with the first query, Stephane Dion’s voice cracked, the leader of the opposition apparently so excited at the prospect of an obvious advantage to claim over his government tormentors.

“Mr. Speaker, five hours before the foreign affairs minister resigned, the Prime Minister said, ‘I don’t take this subject seriously.’ It is true. He did not take this subject seriously and this speaks volumes about the appalling lack of judgment of the Prime Minister. Why was the Prime Minister more interested in protecting his protege than protecting the interests of Canadians?”

The Prime Minister, safely away in France, likely would have objected most to the suggestion that Bernier was any kind of protege. A project, maybe. But a protege? Surely we know better by now than to ever believe this PM would entertain the idea of grooming a rival, let alone one of Mr. Bernier’s capabilities.

In lieu of Mr. Harper, the government sent Peter Van Loan up. Indeed, the House Leader rose on this day no fewer than 29 times—all but two of those to take questions about the duly disgraced former minister of foreign affairs. Even when the opposition begged to be belittled by someone else—the Justice Minister or perhaps the Public Safety Minister—Van Loan persisted. And if he didn’t suffer from arthritis in his knees when the day began, he is most surely stricken now.

His mouth, for that matter, was showing its own signs of wear. “Mr. Speaker, the matter the Prime Minister was referring to was of course the issue of the private life of the member for Beauce, and the Prime Minister continues to be of the view, as does everyone in this government, that the member’s private life is his own private life,” he offered to Dion. “With regard to the breach of the rules, however, as soon as the Prime Minister was aware that a cabinet rule had been breached, the Prime Minister took action.”

Yes, a “breach of the rules.” A technicality for all intents and purposes. That Mr. Bernier lost track of some classified material is the problem. That he left said documents in the possession of a woman with reputed ties to organized crime? Entirely beside the point. Apparently.

If the government side was particularly emboldened by this logic, it was difficult to tell. Many of them, so vocal in their righteous indignation over the last few weeks, sat with their heads down this day, suddenly very interested in their paper work. From approximately where he’d yelled “Balderdash!” the other day, Jim Abbott sat and pecked away at his laptop.

Van Loan eventually took to pouting. “Well if they want to hear the answer, they can listen to it,” he sulked as the Liberals heckled him. “If they do not want to hear the answer, they can keep talking.”

With that he sat down to sympathetic cries of “ahhhh!” from the other side.

Surely, the Liberals were in a good mood this day, smiling and satisfied at the sight of their demoralized opponents. “Don’t let the bed bugs bite!” chirped Todd Russell with one of the afternoon’s finer heckles.

Indeed, when Jack Layton lowered himself to pursue the same line of questioning, the official opposition taunted him too, delighted at his late arrival to the bandwagon.

Normally at pains to seem measured and reasonable, it was Bob Rae, apparently not one to be trifled with, who danced most gloriously on the government’s anguish this day. “Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the only stage the Conservative government is standing on right now is the vaudeville stage,” he sneered. “This is amateur hour on the Rideau.”

“Ohh!” cried various members of the Conservative side, throwing their hands in the air and pleading with the Speaker for mercy.

“Why do you sit on your duffs and do nothing for five weeks?!” he yelped with his second opportunity.

Again the government ministers groaned—thoroughly besmirched at such mention of their posteriors.

It was the House leader at this point, wounded and winded as he was, who offered the day’s most inspired jest. “Mr. Speaker, either they want to hear answers or they want to make funny speeches. It is question period. I am here to answer.”

Oh that Mr. Van Loan. Such a kidder.

All silliness aside, it is perhaps instructive here to remember what a serious position the foreign affairs ministry once was.

Previous to 1993, the position was officially secretary of state for external affairs and under the likes of Borden, Mackenzie King and Diefenbaker, it was assumed by the prime minister of the day. Otherwise it was the place of future PMs (St. Laurent, Pearson, Chrétien) and practiced Parliamentarians (Paul Martin Sr., Mitchell Sharp, Allan MacEachen). Sidney Earle Smith had been president of the universities of Manitoba and Toronto before taking the position. Mark McGuigan was dean of law at the University of Windsor.

Officially a minister’s portfolio for the last decade and a half, the generally respected likes of Lloyd Axworthy, John Manley and Bill Graham have claimed the title.

And, as luck would have it, almost an hour after QP was called to an end, the Right Honourable Joe Clark strode happily into a committee room down the hall to receive a celebration of his time in politics. One of our briefest prime ministers, he subsequently spent nearly seven years in external affairs. And though the official purpose of the reception was to unveil his prime ministerial portrait, pointed mention was made of his efforts in regard to apartheid and famine.

There were nice speeches and distinguished guests and, of course, the painting itself—a handsome likeness of a young Joe lecturing the House, a giant right hand chopping the air.

“Hanging is so final,” he joked. “I didn’t want to foreclose my options.”

For sure, Mr. Bernier this week won himself his own kind of hanging. But, suffice it to say, he will now never be among that, to use Senator Majory LeBreton’s words, “privileged group on men and one woman” who can claim the high honour of an official portrait.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):Mr. Speaker, thanks to Marjorie LeBreton, a Conservative Senate leader, we finally have an insight into Conservative thinking on digital innovation. She says not only does she not understand technologies like Facebook, she thinks they are dangerous.

Are millions of Canadian Internet users a threat? Because that seems to be the latest thinking behind the copyright trial balloon that would oppose a “three strikes and you’re out” policy for home Internet users.Such zero tolerance for innovation might go down like gangbusters with the DMCA lobby, but does the minister think it is really going to fly with educators, innovators and consumers?

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry, CPC):Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously, the copyright bill will be introduced when myself and my colleague are prepared to introduce it to the House.

However, I sense a personal concern on the part of the hon. member. I would like to assure him today that his copyrighted exaggeration, hyperbole and overacting that he has copyrighted in this House will not be prohibited under any legislation the government introduces.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):Mr. Speaker, let us work through the digital lock he just put on that.

The minister is going to throw out some crumbs to the public like telling them they are not going to be arrested if they time-shift their TV shows. However, if their kids download a Hannah Montana ditty or they change the locks on their iPhones they are going to get busted. That is the DMCA.

We need to start separating issues of fair use from counterfeit. We need to bring WIPO into the House for debate and we need to say that the United States ambassador is not the only one who has a right to decide what Canadian copyright legislation we have.

My question is: Why has the minister not brought the WIPO treaty into the House for debate before bringing forward new copyright legislation?

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry, CPC):Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that my hon. friend await the copyright bill and then at that time he can debate DMCA, WIPO, all the other acronyms that he wishes to bring to the floor of the House of Commons. But the bill will be introduced in due course and will be introduced once the appropriate balance has been struck between consumers and industrial consumers as well.